Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 112
Greg Johnson & Hugh MacDonald
A Conversation About Racism
Counter-Currents Radio
56:31 / 102 words
To listen in a player, click here.
To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.
Greg Johnson has a conversation with Canadian filmmaker Hugh MacDonald about the concept of racism. Topics include:
- Analogies between slut shaming and racist shaming
- The meaning of the concept of racism
- Analogies between the concept of racism and racial slurs
- Should whites “own” the concept of racism?
- How we can help prominent whites who are being attacked as racists
Let us know if you would like to sit in on more such conversations.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
31 comments
I really enjoyed the conversation. The sound quality sort of weaved up and down – in case you are not aware of that. But you are so right when you say we should come to the defense of one another. That’s the problem. It’s almost as if people are afraid of getting stigmatized if they defend somebody under fire.
“Racism” is supposed to mean the same thing as “hate.” So, when we are called racists that means we harbor racial hatred. That’s why it is so effective. I tell people it is Marxist drivel which sort of shocks them. But it is true – the whole mess is Marxist drivel purposely designed to keep us from defending ourselves. I’ll be listening to you again. Good show.
Thanks. Hugh’s microphone was better than mine. I have a better one, but for some reason I could not get it working. So I had to use the built in one in my laptop.
Who is Hugh MacDonald? And does he look as good as he sounds? Seriously, I would tune in to listen to him read all the Wong numbers from the Vancouver phone book.
Yes. Hugh is hot.
I hope this gets transcribed soon as not everyone has good hearing, especially since there were problems with the sound equipment.
Great discussion. Solid points from both (slightly different) angles. Lots of people from a more “mainstream” political background would agree with much of what was said here, and there is surely a few points for all of us to think over.
I am not sure slut shaming has any logical premise. It seemed to spring from an emotional reaction to being told the truth.
The word racist is really another example of an oxymoron. Most of us live in a multicultural world and experience “colored people” who are superior to whites in many ways. However, I am white and as such I require advocates in the same way the other ethnics have advocates and if that makes me a racist then get over it.
When I speak with friends and relatives about my racial views, I compare my views on race to their views on family. It usually goes something like this:
Friend: I don’t understand why you are so racist, you work with Black people and I know you get along well with a lot of them, and you grew up in a heavily Latino neighborhood, so I don’t get why you hate those people.
Me: I don’t hate them!
Friend: Sure you do, you want to exclude them.
Me: Listen, let me explain. Do you love your family?
Friend: Of course.
Me: Do you love your family more than, say, your co-workers? Now, be honest.
Friend: Well, I suppose I do.
Me: Of course you do. I know you and I know you would step in front of a bus to save your son, you love your family and are devoted to them.
Friend: Well, thanks, but I don’t see what this has to do with racism.
Me: It has a lot to do with it. You say you love your family and put your family’s interest first. Now, tell me, does that mean that you *hate* everyone who is not of your family?
Friend: Of course not.
Me: And does that mean that you wish them harm?
Friend: No.
Me: Are you being evil by excluding people from membership in your family?
Friend: No, oh, I see where you are going, but that isn’t the same.
Etc, etc. It usually ends up being an “agree to disagree” point, which is miles better than when the issue first arose, and eventually over the years I find that most end up agreeing more than disagreeing.
Well done!
I’d call it good, but not great.
The main thing that kind of argument achieves is that the racist is no longer considered Evil Personified. But the squeamishness about ‘racism’ remains. You can check this by asking whether this guy’s friend can now be appealed to on the basis of white interests. If the answer is no – as I’m virtually certain it is – it’s because he still feels there is something at heart ‘wrong’ about advocating for whites.
The idea that race and racial identity are meaningless is so insane that not even devout anti-racists really believe it, so it’s always possible to score cheap points at its expense. Politically, it doesn’t really add up to much though. The real test of white advocacy is whether the other party comes to agree that: white existence matters and that things can no longer go on as they have. Point-scoring has its place, but by itself it doesn’t achieve this effect.
An additional argument against racist shaming rely on the history of this moral category:
Luke Ford:
Also, there was no such sin as “racism” prior to the 20th Century. No moral system had such a sin, not Judaism nor Christianity nor Islam nor secular humanism nor Buddhism nor Shintoism, etc. “Racism” is entirely a made-up moral category. It’s another example of the false moral thinking of the moral world along with “homophobia” and “Islamophobida” and “sexism” and the like.
That’s a good point. Also, there’s no condemnation of racism in Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Confucius, Descartes, Hobbes, Hegel or, for that matter, any other great thinker in History.
Depending on your audience, you can also point out that racism as a moral evil is actually a Jewish Marxist made-up concept, although Karl Marx was not an anti-racist himself, as anyone can find out for himself reading his letters. Trotsky was the one who coined the term, then other Jewish Marxist intellectuals, ethnic activists and fraudsters posing as scientists pushed for the vilification of “racism” and denial of racial differences.
The more commited and fanatical antifa and anti-racist groups have notoriously been, for many decades, far-left groups like Searchlight, actually Trotskyists. In its core, it’s been a far-left and Jewish business from the beginning.
When you learn the history of anti-racism, well… things start to look slightly different.
But these are not the kind of arguments you can use in any occasion. I’ve used them talking to a couple of friends. While I didn’t thoroughly convince them, at least I made them think a bit.
I like the comparison between race and family. After all, races are extended families. The more united a family is, the more strong it is.
An excellent conversation. I tend to like these more than the interviews, it just flows more naturally.
What might end up happening with the word once we control the culture is a double standard where we use Johnson’s approach when it suits us of de-stigmatizing the word, or Hugh MacDonald’s of placing others on trial in the court of public opinion when that suits us better instead. That is real power, though I imagine many of us would prefer a more consistent approach.
A sidebar by Hugh MacDonald in the middle is worth exploring at greater length.
He discusses the term “nationalist”.
Positive self-identity vs. negative opponent-imposed identity (“racist”).
Quote from Hugh MacDonald [from 32:20]: “I would never deny that absolutely I’m putting my people first. That yes, I’m a nationalist. I prefer the term ‘European Nationalist,’ but really I mean ‘White Nationalist.’ It’s one and the same thing. My only hesitation to using the term ‘European nationalist’ is that sometimes people misunderstand me and think that I’m talking about some kind of European civic nationalism, and that my loyalty is to people who are ‘citizens’ of the legal entity called Europe, or countries within the continent of Europe. But obviously I’m referring to White people. That in itself is a subversive thing to say. It’s a dangerous thing to say. It’s a rebellious thing to say that ‘absolutely, I’m putting my own people first, I’m a European Nationalist; I’m a White Nationalist. So I have that element of rebellion there, but still I would never call myself a racist — because it’s offensive to me. You’re saying that it’s bad to stand up for our interests…”
Comment: “Nationalist” itself, as a term, can pose certain other problems. Briefly: Nations come and go; they can substantially change in character over time. “Nationalist” can be confused with “super patriot” (a patriot being an ardent follower of his state’s ideology) or other concepts. Google around for “George W. Bush nationalist” to get a sense of what I mean.
What about the term “racialist”?
Dan wrote:
Johnson’s approach … of de-stigmatizing the word
I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but — despite my ignorance of what Greg actually said — I’ll just say here that trying to de-stigmatize the word seems to me like worse than a waste of time.
“Racism” masquerades as a moral term indicating moral disapproval. As a moral term it implies that a White person guilty of “racism” (a “racist”) hates members of other racial groups and wishes them harm. A hate-filled Klansman setting out to lynch and castrate an inoffensive Black in the 1920s was therefore a “racist.” His hatred and his “racism” were virtually identical.
With that kind of history — a distorted history, but that’s a separate issue — as the word’s most salient background, “racism” and “racist” are then promiscuously misapplied to beliefs and practices that do not imply either hatred or a wish to do others harm. For example, belief in the existence and value of national borders is “racist.” Belief that our racial group has the right to remain the majority in our various nations is “racist.” In the new world of microaggressions, even our posture and our facial expressions can be “racist.” Conversely, practices that target Whites for punishment and do actual harm to us, like affirmative-action or open borders, are “anti-racist.”
Which is to say that the word is simply a weapon. In normal political usage it has no serious meaning beyond its status as a weapon in the campaign against us.
If I call John a “Marxist,” because John believes in the teachings of Karl Marx, I am identifying and clarifying John’s political opinions. If I call Jim a “racist,” I am attempting to deny that Jim’s political opinions have any validity by characterizing his political opinions as signs of his inner pathologies and hatreds.
Everyone here has, hopefully, come across Whitaker’s slogan, “anti-racist is code for anti-White.” Unlike most slogans, this slogan is absolutely true.
Since we need some word to describe ourselves, I prefer “racial nationalist” or “racialist.” I would never answer to “racist,” because “racism” is the most prominent and most powerful verbal weapon in the system of ideas we are trying to defeat.
I would go further: the entirety of our efforts as White nationalists are in effect, whether we know it or not, an attempt to dethrone “racism.”
Sam Francis on “Racism”
http://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/may-1999/#article1
— Irmin
If the term is as powerful a weapon as you claim, then the way to defuse it is to get our people to no longer fear or care about being accused of being racists.
I don’t think any word has an “inherent” meaning one way or another. It means what we allow it to mean. When we no longer think racism is a bad thing, then we will no longer fear being called racists.
When we no longer think racism is a bad thing, then we will no longer fear being called racists.
I take ‘racism’ to mean ‘immoral acts done in the name of race,’ so I don’t think the day will ever come that people ‘no longer think racism is a bad thing,’ because it assumes that the great majority of people could actually come to believe that no act done in the name of race can ever be wrong. I find that assumption untenable. To be sure, what people consider racism could become greatly restricted, but I think every person has his ‘racial limit’ – what he’s prepared to do in the name of race – and pushing a person beyond that limit can be very upsetting to him, and rather than debate you he’d prefer to simply cut you off by calling you a racist.
That said, I don’t think the word ‘racist’ is as powerful as is often thought. Just this past Saturday I found myself hanging out with a young Irish tourist. We had been shooting pool and then stepped out into the streets. Somehow a racial topic came up and I made some remark which prompted him to ask me, “So are you a racist then?” There wasn’t any hint of reproach in his tone; he asked as casually as he’d inquire what make of car I drive. I answered, “Well… yeah, I suppose I am. I mean, I’m not out to hurt anyone, but I don’t think all this really works that well [indicating with my hand at the extreme heterogeneity all around us].” He basically agreed with that so I added, “I think it’s just something they call you to shut you up so you can’t complain.” To this he replied with a grin that he knew very well what I meant. I dropped it there, since it’s too depressing a subject to dwell on when you’re out to have fun.
I’ve had many similar experiences in one-on-one conversation. It’s only been in groups that I have experienced heated opposition to my point of view – as soon as one opponent pipes up other people quickly pile on. The pressure to disavow ‘racism’ in those situations can be quite intense. To my severe displeasure and disappointment even people in the group I have known full well agree with me have refused to support me at those times. Going out of my way to call myself a racist in such moments would be about the most futile, counterproductive act I could think of. After ruining a few friendships by being too outspoken I eventually learned to pace myself.
I think you should listen to the conversation before commenting further.
Still, Verlis introduced an important understanding of the word:
I take ‘racism’ to mean ‘immoral acts done in the name of race,’ so I don’t think the day will ever come that people ‘no longer think racism is a bad thing,’
Now, I’m certain that Verlis is wrong in one respect: the immoral acts that “racism” normally points to are done by our race, not by other races. But the fact is that most people assume “racism” is very very bad. I see no good reason to embrace a term that most people think signifies something wicked. If I am not bad, there is no reason for me to accept language that describes me as very very bad.
— Irmin
I don’t think any word has an “inherent” meaning one way or another.
Of course.
You’re the one more guilty of reifying words. The word “racism” has the word “race” in it; your beliefs have something to do with race. Therefore you’re willing to answer to “racist.”
It is true that “racism” could have evolved to mean standing up for your own race, just as “asshole” could have evolved into a compliment. “Racism” could also have ended up meaning having great admiration for Shakespearean tragedy. But it didn’t.
A White employer who wants to discriminate in hiring in favor of members of his own race is a “racist.” A White person who opposes affirmative-action plans that target members of his own race for discrimination is also a “racist.” The common denominator that makes both of those usages possible is that the actor in question has a Caucasian physiognomy and European ancestry, and that he is doing something involving race that the users of the word disapprove of. Therefore a Black employer who wants to discriminate in hiring in favor of his race is not a “racist”; he is engaged in the work of antiracism.
In the world of microaggressions, there can be little doubt that a “racist” is basically a White person, regardless of anything he or she might say or do. “Racism” essentially targets our existence.
In practical political terms, the circulation of Whitaker’s slogan is one of the few victories we have achieved. It fits well with the recognition that many of our people have that “racism” is unfair. “Racism” is increasingly regarded alternately as a joke or as a weapon on talk radio and in the comment sections of articles linked to by Drudge. Defending and embracing “racism” is incompatible with that positive development.
If Jared Taylor and Don Black deny “racism” and Greg Johson defends it, it would be difficult for a non-racialist White disturbed by the racial double-standards he encounters almost daily to figure out what White nationalists think about the matter. It is much better to have a clear opposition to a word which is, as a matter of fact, used more often as a slur than as a compliment.
It means what we allow it to mean.
It means also what others mean when they use it. Since the people who use it the most are our enemies, and since they talk about it often, it mostly means what they want it to mean.
When we no longer think racism is a bad thing,
That presupposes that “racism” is a thing, like a box, with easily definable contours, rather than a deceptive weapon of attack that has been embedded in the consciousness of most of our people.
— Irmin
We need to own the term racist.
Please look at Modern Drunkard magazine: http://www.drunkard.com/
Modern Drunkard is ostensibly satirical. The term “drunkard” is shameful. Yet, the people behind Modern Drunkard love booze and make their detractors look like fools.
We can do the same thing by being Modern Racists. We are sleek, suave, and classy. We discriminate. We are better.
Greg seems to think of “racism” as some misunderstood and unfairly maligned concept. It isn’t. Hugh MacDonald is right. “Racism” is an attack; it is not a description of beliefs or practices.
There is no real parallel between “I’m a racist; there’s nothing wrong with that” and “I’m a slut; there’s nothing wrong with that.”
The negative connotations of “slut” are imposed upon an actual behavior, which is either wrong or innocuous depending on your point of view. If you think the behavior is wrong, you may label a woman who has multiple sexual partners a “slut.” Thus calling a woman a “slut” means she has many sexual partners and you disapprove of her behavior. A virgin cannot be a “slut.”
“Slut” stays fixed on an actual pattern of behavior and — unfairly perhaps — stigmatizes that behavior. A woman who owns up to “slut” is therefore declaring that she does have multiple sexual partners and sees nothing morally wrong about her choices. (I think that’s a really dumb thing for a feminist to do, but that’s a separate issue.)
“Slut” does not denote planning to explode nuclear devices in large cities or yearning to lynch Blacks. “Slut” is a slur, but it is a normal word, so it stays fixed on its semantic target. On the other hand, “racism” in its normal usage does not have an actual behavior or an actual set of attitudes that is then disapprobated by the application of the adjective “racist.” There is no core behavior or set of attitudes denoted and connoted by “racism” that we would want to acknowledge. “Racism” does not mean, for example, standing up for your own people. It has never meant anything like standing up for your own people. Black organizations that stand up for their own people are anti-racist organizations.
The parallel between “slut” and “racist” would be just barely plausible if in practice the former was reserved exclusively for White women and Black or Chinese women were never called sluts. But in fact “racist” is for all practical purposes a slur exclusively directed at us. Those rare exceptions when it is directed at non-Whites are best thought of as unfortunate accidents.
“Racism” is a word whose sole purpose is to pathologize the normal behavior of members of our race by assigning to us motives and ambitions that are substantially different from our actual motives and ambitions. I see no reason whatever for trying to rehabilitate it.
“Racism” wasn’t “loaded with anti-White propaganda” after years of useful service as a normal word. It is anti-White propaganda and always has been. It came pre-loaded with its pathologizing anti-White propaganda. The purpose of the word is to carry a stigma; the two are not, in my opinion, separable.
It’s as though every day your worst enemy calls you an “asshole,” and after years of listening to him, you conclude that you should acknowledge the term and defend yourself by explaining that “asshole” really means something quite different from what he intended.
As to the matter of practical politics, we will be “ducking and weaving” regardless of whether we embrace “racism” or reject it. If you accept “racism,” you then have to explain how your understanding of the word differs from the normal understanding. That involves just as much ducking and weaving as rejecting the label does.
It is better to mock “racism” and to describe its character. It doesn’t contain some overpowering moral claim or a set of devilishly contrived intellectual arguments that we are fearful of attacking. It is a dishonest concept that is easy to rebut and easy to mock. Expressions of complete contempt for the idea are a form of attack.
Despite my disagreements, it was a great podcast.
— Irmin
A meme, slogan, sound-bite, whatever, to counter attack:
I’m on the good guys side – I oppose white genocide
or
Be on the moral side – oppose white genocide
or
I’m on truth’s side – I oppose white genocide
or
She’s on nature’s side – she opposes white genocide
There could be many variables of this, always linking a positive quality with opposition to white genocide. If it was heard often enough, it would suffice just to say ‘I’m on the xxxx side’ for the second part to echo.
Irmin,
Now, I’m certain that Verlis is wrong in one respect: the immoral acts that “racism” normally points to are done by our race, not by other races.
That’s a fair point. The vast majority of the time ‘racist’ is an attack, not a description. Similar acts (or attitudes) by other races are at most considered ‘racist-y’ – there’s a element of descriptive ‘racism’ there, but it doesn’t cause nearly the outrage of white ‘racism.’ This is irrational and unfair, but there are a couple of reasons for it.
The first is that few people ever want to get close to the non-white race being described as ‘racist’ so whether that race is being ‘racist’ or not isn’t particularly important. For example, few Koreans have any great desire to absorb themselves in, say, Arab culture or to move freely in the Arab world, so whether Arabs are being racist or not hardly merits consideration. Also, most Koreans would like to be able to engage in those behaviors being called ‘racist’ themselves, so there is little motivation to denounce them.
Secondly, the ‘racism’ of non-whites doesn’t carry the implied political threat that white ‘racism’ does. Whites being ‘racist’ could transform the entire political landscape; non-whites being ‘racist’ is barely a political bleep. These perceptions could change with the economic and military rise of non-white powers like China and India, but it’s unlikely that these powers would be so stupid as to announce their self-regard and intentions as blatantly as nationalist European powers once did so any perception of danger that arises will likely be dimmed (in relation to the true level of threat).
Nonetheless, even though the ‘racism’ of non-whites is not taken as seriously as the ‘racism’ of whites, I think it should be. I wouldn’t want to live in a world in which, racially, ‘anything goes.’ Despite ‘racism’ generally being an anti-white attack strategy, some good has come of it in that most people of all races really have come to believe, quite strongly, that it’s wrong to harm or disadvantage people of other races simply for being of another race. (Least true in the case of blacks with respect to whites, but a large part of their intransigence results from their mistaken, media-fuelled belief that they are unfairly disadvantaged by whites.) White racial restitution is morally unimpeachable, but I think it would be a great pity if, in the course of securing it, these moral advances were forsaken.
‘racist!’ is an attack, it has no meaning. It has only emotive content, it doesn’t denote at all. Calling someone a racist is like yelling “fuck you!”.
Still, you should never – never! – say “I’m not a racist, but … “. Because that would frame the discussion that makes you the bad guy from the start. Don’t play games that are fixed for you to lose from the beginning.
However, embracing the attack is no good, either. People don’t have the attention span to understand what you are talking about if you try to explain it to them (Greg gives them way too much credit). Remember, feminists haven’t succeeded to make ‘slut’ into something positive, far from it – and they have a million times better chance of doing that than you would have changing the emotive value of ‘racist’, given that they are backed up by a unanimous Jewish storytelling machine and education system, and we have a handful of fulltime nationalists. You don’t stand a chance with this one.
The best response I heard in the podcast was, “why do you hate white people?”. Never ever – ever! – answer logically to a verbal attack. Someone calls you “racist!” (or asks “are you racist?”), you answer, emotionally unaffected, preferably with a smile, “you can call me all the names you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that [there are social problems with blacks, whites are in trouble, white children are soon a minority in many white countries, whites too have a right to a country of their own, or whatever]”. The only function of ‘racist!’ is to make you defensive – if you don’t care, it has failed, and the discussion can move on.
Don’t bother to defend agaisnt the attack. In fact, don’t bother about it at all.
Greg definitely has the better strategy as far as dealing with being called a racist. Hugh’s idea of telling them that you’re offended by the term racist doesn’t work for a couple reasons. First, this is making the assumption that the accusers legitimately care whether you’re a racist or not. It’s assuming that, if shown enough evidence to the contrary, they’ll rescind their accusation and admit their mistake. The fact of the matter is they use this word because they know it makes white people squirm and scares them into submission. You almost never see it applied to non-whites because it has no effect on them.
The other reason it doesn’t work is because being offended by a word is a privilege that only members of the victim hierarchy club can enjoy. As evil white male oppressors, we are barred from joining this organization. None of the members of this club have pity or sympathy for our existence or possible extinction, let alone whether our feelings are hurt by what somebody says. It’s what I would assume draws most people to white/European-nationalism in the first place: nobody else is going to stand up for us, so we just have to do it ourselves.
Along with Greg’s recommendations, some similar alternatives that might be good are “What does that even mean?” and “So what?” or “I don’t care.” When they can’t explain themselves or see that this word has no power over you, it deflates their argument quite a bit if not entirely.
Also, Hugh’s video on ethnomasochism is probably one of the best Youtube videos of all time. Hope to see more work from you.
Along with Greg’s recommendations, some similar alternatives that might be good are “What does that even mean?” and “So what?” or “I don’t care.”
Michael Hill of the League of the South once used the “so what?” response in a way that impressed me. Some reporter had asked him if what he was proposing wasn’t racist and he replied, “So what? I’m standing up for my own people and no one else.”
That isn’t going to insta-convert anybody, but it does cut to the chase and bring the charades to an effective end. The forthright addition of “I’m standing up for my own people and no one else” makes the job of characterizing one’s position as depraved and evil more difficult. Typically, if you leave things vague opponents can very easily put an ominous spin on it. Forthrightness has an unadorned quality of “you might not agree with me, but if you do join me” to it that I think a large number of whites – though by no means all – find appealing.
What to say when called a racist:
You’re just saying that because I’m white,
Anti racist is just a code word for anti white.
Get on message guys!
The thing I have found when discussing these things with white liberals that are still caught up in the liberal Marxist trance, that stops them in there tracks is when you call them a self hater , if we can use this term like they use anti Semite or racist we may get some of the lemmings to stop and listen, I have used this term numerous times and the embarrassment on there faces is priceless.They quickly start to examine themselves.You still have to be learned in the truth as well.
That is good.
There is a distinction here that I don’t see picked up in the comments.
The conversation revolves around the slurs, ‘slut’, ‘nigger’ and ‘racist’, and the responces to each by affected groups. ‘Slut’ and ‘racist’ are slurs against moral choices, like ‘abortionist’, or ‘moocher’. ‘Nigger, on the other hand, is a slur against identity, like ‘kike’, or ‘retard’.
In the context of a society with egalitarian values, this matters. Immutable identities are held as being equally good, because to do otherwise would violate the egalitarian premise, ‘All men are created equal’. Thus, slurs against identity are deemed contemptible. We can say “don’t call me cracker’ nearly as effectively as a black person can say “don’t call me nigger”. “Don’t call me racist” is not going to make any more moral sense to people than “don’t call me burglar”.
So I don’t think Hugh’s Rhetorical approach makes much sense. He would be responding to a slur against identity with tactics suited to a slur against morals.
So there are two responses to slurs against morality. The ‘slutwalk’ method is to challenge the validity of the moral claim, to assert that there is nothing wrong with slutty behavior.
The other response is the Identitty Option: claim that the moral choices in question are simply the result of an immutable identity. The ‘fags’ have successfully pulled this one off in about a single lifetime.
I don’t think the Identity Option is a possibility. First, a ‘Racist’ identity is totally at odds with egalitarianism. Second, identity is never a one way street: part of having an identity is being recognized as such by others. ‘Born Racist” is not going to fly, whether true or not.
Iguess the third option would be to destroy the legitimacy of egalitarianism as a moral system. A tall order.
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
Lost your password?Edit your comment