Yes, Karma is the Same Old Nonsense

Yes, Karma is the same old nonsense…

“Damien, do you believe in karma?”

No, why would I?

If the claim of a god: a superpower being with an ultimate all-knowing mind that is involved in judging and distribution of morality consequences is ridiculous as an atheist. Then how much more ludicrous is the claim of karma: a beingless mind devoid superpower that is an all-knowing nothingism with an ultimate all knowingness involved in judging and distribution of morality consequences.

Without Nonsense, Religion Dies

I am against ALL Pseudoscience, Pseudohistory, and Pseudomorality. And all of these should openly be debunked, when and where possible. Of course, not forgetting how they are all highly represented in religion. All three are often found in religion to the point that if they were removed, their loss would likely end religion as we know it. I don’t have to respect ideas. People get confused ideas are not alive nor do they have beingness, Ideas don’t have rights nor the right to even exist only people have such a right. Ideas don’t have dignity nor can they feel violation only people if you attack them personally. Ideas don’t deserve any special anything they have no feelings and cannot be shamed they are open to the most brutal merciless attack and challenge without any protection and deserve none nor will I give them any if they are found wanting in evidence or reason. I will never respect Ideas if they are devoid of merit I only respect people.

Notice to the Superstitious or Supernaturalists

If you want to claim a thing, to me, I want all the details, all aspects, all attributes and not wishy-washy generalization evading too many details wishing to help push its unreasonableness, all the while hoping to make it seem more possible, when it is nothing of the sort with what you have failed to provide me. Because people that are too fond of generalizations (Hasty Generalizations and/or Faulty generalizations) tend to also commonly not be well informed on what they are talking about.

kar·ma: Sanskrit meaning fate, work

Just-World phenomenon is like Karma

From the definition of karma, the ‘amounts’ of goodwill/actions and badwill/actions which are reportedly stored in some way to somewhere to be carried over to a next life or are carried on to a next life. Consider what would need to exist in order for the good/badwill/actions to actually work, now how is this not some unjustified blind faith without any valid and/or reliable reason and evidence?

“YOUR KARMA IS YOUR OWN DOING (like sin)”

“Every person is responsible for his or her acts and thoughts, so each person’s karma is entirely his or her own. Occidentals see the operation of karma as fatalistic. But that is far from true since it is in the hands of an individual to shape his own future by schooling his present. Hindu philosophy, which believes in life after death, holds the doctrine that if the karma of an individual is good enough, the next birth will be rewarding, and if not, the person may actually devolve and degenerate into a lower life form. In order to achieve good karma, it is important to live life according to dharma or what is right. THREE KINDS OF KARMA: According to the ways of life chosen by a person, his karma can be classified into three kinds. The satvik karma, which is without attachment, selfless and for the benefit of others; the rajasik karma, which is selfish where the focus is on gains for oneself; and the tamasik karma, which is undertaken without heed to consequences, and is supremely selfish and savage. In this context, Dr. D N Singh in his A Study of Hinduism quotes Mahatma Gandhi’s lucid differentiation between the three. According to Gandhi, the tamasik works in a mechanic fashion, the rajasik drives too many horses, is restless and always doing something or other, and the satvik works with peace in mind. Swami Sivananda, of the Divine Life Society, Rishikesh classifies karma into three kinds on the basis of action and reaction: Prarabdha (so much of past actions as has given rise to the present birth), Sanchita (the balance of past actions that will give rise to future births – the storehouse of accumulated actions), Agami or Kriyamana (acts being done in the present life).” Ref

All religions have some form of self-shaming institution such as “sin” or its equivalents such as karma or something else often used to describe actions that create negative “self” or “other”outlook where truly there is none. This idea of sin points out how religions promote pseudo-morality. The easiest aspect to grasp about pseudo-morality is when it is claimed that you can do something immoral to yourself that is pseudo-morality. True morality is how one conducts themselves with others. There is no ethical violation of self. To understand this concept considers how consent violations are unethical and how one does not need to get consent from oneself. Thus, there cannot be a consent violation against self and the aspect of sin is pseudo-morality, which promotes that there can be a violation of the self.

The word “hinduism” is not to be found anywhere in the scriptures, and the term “hindu” was introduced by foreigners who referred to people living across the River Indus or Sindhu, in the north of India, around which the vedic religion is believed to have originated. The religious tradition of hinduism created such concepts and practices as yoga, ayurveda, vastu, jyotish, yajna, puja, tantra, vedanta, karma, etc. Jains define godliness as the inherent quality of any soul characterizing infinite bliss, infinite power, perfect knowledge, and perfect peace. However, these qualities of a soul are subdued due to karmas of the soul. One who achieves this state of soul through right belief, right knowledge, and right conduct can be termed as god.

This perfection of soul is called kaivalya or bodhi. A god thus becomes a soul-liberated of miseries, cycles of rebirth, world, karmas, and finally liberated of the body as well. This is called nirvana or moksha. If godliness is defined as the state of having freed one’s soul from karmas and the attainment of enlightenment/nirvana and a god as one who exists in such a state, then those who have achieved such a state can be termed gods/tirthankara. Thus, rishabha was god/tirthankara but he was not the only tirthankara; there were many other tirthankara. However, the quality of godliness is the same in all of them. Thus, jainism can be defined as deityist, polytheist, monotheist, nontheist, transtheist, or atheist, depending on one’s definition of god. In Jain cosmology, naraka (translated as hell) is the name given to the realm of existence having great suffering.

The hells are situated in the seven grounds at the lower part of the universe. However, a naraka differs from the hells of Abrahamic religions, as souls are not sent to naraka as the result of a divine judgment and punishment. Furthermore, the length of a being’s stay in a naraka is not eternal, though it is usually very long, measured in billions of years. A soul is born into a naraka as a direct result of their previous karma (actions of body, speech, and mind), and resides there for a finite length of time until their karma has achieved its full result. After their karma is used up, they may be reborn in one of the higher worlds as the result of an earlier karma that had not yet ripened. In our world of science fact, fideism (faith over reason) and things like believing in creationism is stupid though this is not saying I think theists are stupid as people just the fideism (faith over reason) beliefs in general are stupid beliefs.

Theists or people who support fideism learn to suspend analytical reasoning when it comes to their faith in desired beliefs such as creationism, intelligent design, or other wacky ideas such as karma or astrology. They have been taught to behave that way from childhood. Fideism (faith over reason) is even seen as a virtue in many groups and cultures. I was a theist too because of childhood religious indoctrination and as other religious indoctrinated, I too once valued fideism (faith over reason) until my wife Shayna showed me the facts and taught me how to ask questions. This expose me to be open to science as well as the history of religions contradicting my childhood religious indoctrination and asked me to explain why I have faith in the supernatural which has no proof and it forced me to use my rational skill and move past the learned stupidity of fideism (faith over reason).

After gaining this new information based on reason and evidence, I started to demand that I use rational intuition; I became an atheist and a rationalist, even though it was still hard to remove completely the desire to use fideism. As a whole, religious people are or stay less intelligent than atheists stay, though this is a generality as specific religionists/fideists and atheists will vary, because they hold value in fideism. According to the analysis of scores of scientific studies extending over decades, demonstrates and backs up with facts that there are intelligent differences. However, it may not be the religionist/fideist’s fault, if you are indoctrinated with fear of hell from a very early age, this is not completely a matter of intelligence to me, but it is a factor. Belief and reasons to desire fideism (faith over reason) can be complicated but it seems fear is the most prominent contributing element to belief.

In addition, this seems somewhat obvious as street preachers constantly threaten hell to add the fear element with the desire of scaring you into the god belief. Not just fear of god, fear as loss of family, friends, or a social group including status in one’s culture. God(s) is supernatural, prayer because it is said you can ask and receive things is supernatural, revelation is supernatural, karma is supernatural, miracles are supernatural, reincarnation is supernatural, magical potions and witchcraft are supernatural, and even places like heaven or hell are supernatural. However, what do all of these individual “supernatural” phenomena have in common? Metaphysically, what allows us to distinguish them from “natural” phenomena? There is a clear and meaningful metaphysical distinction between “natural” and the “supernatural” to justifying our use of these terms.

The “supernatural” is a false fantasy concept for there is only natural. Stop believing in supernatural and be honest in the wonderment of natural reality as it truly is. Sometimes, it is claimed that science can only study the “natural” world and that “supernatural” phenomena cannot be known through the scientific method. However, science is empirical which means it is based on observation, experience, or experimentation rather than just theoretical concepts or pure logic. Many phenomena that we would describe as “supernatural” such as prayer, revelation, karma, miracles, reincarnation, magical potions, witchcraft, or turning water into wine that have empirical claims attached to it, would be empirically observable or testable.

In many religious cultures, including christianity and islam, hell is traditionally depicted as fiery and painful, inflicting guilt and suffering. Zoroastrianism has historically suggested several possible fates for the wicked, including annihilation, purgation in molten metal, and eternal punishment. Hinduism and jainism both have a realm similar to hell, called naraka. Taoism mostly adopted tenets of other religions, endows taoist hell with many deities and spirits who punish sin in a variety of horrible ways. This is also considered karma for taoism. In the baha’i faith, the conventional descriptions of hell and heaven are considered to be symbolic. Despite these common depictions of hell as a place of fire, some other traditions portray hell as cold. Buddhist, particularly Tibetan buddhist’s descriptions of hell feature an equal number of hot and cold hells. The cultures of Mesopotamia including Sumeria, the Akkadian Empire, Babylonia, and Assyria, the Hittites and the Canaanites/Ugarits reveal some of the earliest evidence for the notion of a netherworld or underworld. If “everything is relative,” how much easier is it to declare that dharma and karma could be real? Indeed, if “everything is relative,” then anything goes and can be “justified” by the appeal to “relativity supported by science.”

Moreover, if “nothing is real,” then why not just let people do whatever they want to do or say whatever they want to say without ever challenging them? Of course, if you just happen to live in and recognize the real world where nothing is relative, then you will do what you can to prevent such misinterpretations of science from further corrupting minds too easily susceptible to accepting nonsense wrapped in pseudoscientific garb. A good start is to promote the understanding that many people, including scientists, frequently misinterpret and/or exaggerate scientific findings to make proclamations about things that legitimate science does not support. Beyond that, grounding oneself and others in realist philosophies will also help prevent nonsense claims from gaining more devotees. Legitimate science is a fine servant of truth, but faulty misinterpretations of science only serve the enemy of truth and should be exposed and resisted in defense of the truth.

Karma (car-ma) is a word meaning the result of a person’s actions as well as the actions themselves. It is a term about the cycle of cause and effect. According to the theory of Karma, what happens to a person, happens because they caused it with their actions. It is an important part of many religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism and islam. Ref

The Reasonless Belief Systems of Dharma and Karma

Now, I will address a seemingly common reasonless belief in karma, though typically a theist thing to believe in. Well sadly, I have heard some who still like to believe in some version of karma even after turning atheist. Karma, even to the Western world, is a part odd, part ridiculous, and part religion. If they are trying to say positive action is of benefit to the world, this is not the same as saying karma magic is real, which is like saying the fact that children get gifts on christmas proves santa claus is real. This is not a logical chain of proof. Karma, like many cause and effect misinterpretations, are based on confirmation bias.

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions that leads to statistical errors. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. Confirmation bias is a phenomenon, wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis and ignores or under weigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis. As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence. I am not saying all atheists fall for nonsense like karma but do they all hold to scientific realism or even understand what that is, well that is another question altogether. The education of atheists needs to go even further if we are to think of ourselves as living in and recognize the real world by real rejecting the nonreal. Most godless people have better knowledge of the holy books, often of multiple religions, than most religionists/fideists but we are benefited in grasping the scientific misinterpretations which promote the possibilities that the non-realism and antirealism in the holy books should be fully rejected by scientific realism.

We should do more than say the holy books have errors or just say why these gods are illogical but expose how they reject scientific realism. Those with the weakest faith/knowledge in their beliefs or the weakest scientific thinking/knowledge will be the quickest to get the angriest. When they feel that their opinion is not being heard or validated as at least equal to all others, or if you refuse to change their beliefs to allow for the possibility of their thinking to be wrong, they become outraged likely switching to personal or character attacks. Because we all know by yelling and trying to turn it around gives a statement or thinking that is more validity that actual research and facts will ever do… Not. The ethical problem with these belief systems that try to explain why life is fair is that they make it more unfair by heaping blame onto someone’s misfortune. If something bad happens to you, it must be because you earned it in bad karma. Karma is part of the belief in reincarnation that leads us to the term karma.

People, often use karma as if it is separate from the belief in reincarnation. Karma as a catch-all term is familiar and is forgetting the religious thinking or dharmic religions of hinduism, buddhism, sikhism, and jainism that promote though their idea of karma can be a bit different from one another. In very simplified terms, karma is the belief that a person’s actions in life will determine their fate in the next life. If a person is kind and selfless in this life, they will be rewarded in the next life. Unfortunately, the opposite is also true. If a person is a scoundrel today, let us just say they will be paying for it in their next tomorrow! Although our culture does not always use the word karma, relics of it are apparent in phrases such as ‘what goes around comes around,’ or ‘they sure got what was coming to them!’ Now, I will explain dharma and this term is probably the most alien to the Western mind. For this reason, a simple definition is best; in dharma, the belief is the moral force that orders the universe. The power keeps the world in motion and keeps society ticking. It keeps the trees blooming, the grass growing, and the birds singing.

However, dharma is maintained through personal duty. Simply put, it is up to dharma believers to do their part to keep the world operating smoothly. Sounds like bullshit, right. With this, dharma is both universal and circumstantial or personal and not to forget is total nonsense. In the bhagavad-gita, a sacred Indian text mainly in hinduism, a ruler’s crown is challenged by rebellion. Since the ruler knew murder was wrong, he put down his weapons and refused to kill the rebels. However, the god vishnu appeared and told him it was his personal duty or dharma to kill his enemies. Yes, senseless murder would go against the universal idea of dharma, but in this story, it was the honorable ruler’s personal duty or dharma to kill.

Let me get back to karma, the part of the belief that many assert, “People get what is coming to them,” but this thinking is wishful-thinking and is reasonless for both good and bad things can happen constantly and randomly to everyone. Faith is wishful-thinking, just like calling good and bad things that happen constantly as karma which make karma wishful-thinking and delusional. Karma is a false belief that the individual’s behaviors and thinking matter to the unseeing universe. Belief in karma is thinking that somehow the magic wand thinking will bless or honor your good deeds or punish bad deeds, even though logically that same non-being something, which is supposedly watching, is not able to watch nor has beingness to get involved.

In addition, this non-being mindless nothingness cannot reasonably watch everyone on the planet earth and then through life’s own hocus-pocus come to rational conclusions and reasoned judgments with this same non-being nothingness. Somehow, karma is believed to do all this magic without a mind to think and analyze the actions of billions of people happening at once in a life it cannot see and yet, is thought to participate actively in altering things in a life it is not really in as well. Therefore, I call bullshit. Like all superstitions, I try to apply logic, rational, critical thinking, and require evidence. So as you can guess, I do not believe in karma or dharma. I think all the belief systems of dharma and karma are all bullshit. I wish to help others become enlightened. I want a world of people with knowledge living in mental freedom.

The indigenous religions of India “sikhism, hinduism, buddhism, and jainism” all ask their believers to following the concepts of dharma and karma to improve not only this life, but their ensuing ones as well. Thus, all are antirealistic and a reality that supporters should reject. I only believe in reality and do not at all agree with faith’s wishful-thinking like karma and its magical cause and effect reasoning. Bad people do evil and often suffer little and good people do kind things and are killed, swindled, and abused. All kinds of random good or bad occur and accrue, there is no balance to or of things, which means the world is not working on our behalf, and nothing shields us from random events. I do believe it is humans practicing or using a thoughtful or caring humanity that adds to the good in the world but this is only positive intentions and not cosmic anything.

Karma is the self-soothing fable that is embraced by the powerless, fearful, and lazy when faced with injustice. Karma is a belief that is every bit as horrible as the idea of original sin! It says that natural disasters, diseases, poverty, murder, and abuse happen to people because they deserve it. This thinking is a sick and immoral thought process that is devoid of reason. Original sin and karma are horrible concepts to teach children. To tell them that they are inherently evil and/or deserve any bad things that happen to them is unimaginably cruel and damaging. People who believe in karma say, “But my truth is my truth and it has credibility to me and you must respect my way of seeing things.” However, I say, Sorry, you are not entitled to have your opinion being respected.

Everyone has their opinion and I am entitled to my opinion or I have a right to my opinion is a common declaration in rhetoric or debate that can be made at some point in an argument. When asserted for this reason, the statement exemplifies an informal logical fallacy of the type called Red Herring. Whether one has a particular entitlement or right is irrelevant to whether one’s assertion is true or false. To assert the existence of the right is a failure to assert any justification for the opinion. However, such an assertion can also be an assertion of one’s own freedom or a refusal to participate in the system of logic at hand. If your opinion is not supported with reason and evidence, it is not equal to the other who forms their opinion supported with reason and evidence. Your unsupported opinion of karma is not equal to my supported opinion that there is no karma.

Why would we buy into a concept of karma as if it was real? There are at least two big problems with the ways that karma has often been understood. Although, the earliest teachings are quite clear that laypeople too can become enlightened, the main role of lay buddhists, as widely practiced today, is to support the monastic sangha. In this way, the non-monastics gain “merit,” and by accumulating merit they can hope to attain a more favorable rebirth. This approach makes karma a commodity, which would seem a form of “spiritual materialism,” an attitude that is quite different from the path that the buddha taught. Karma has also been used to rationalize sexism, racism, caste, economic oppression, birth handicaps, and almost everything else.

Taken literally, karma justifies the authority of political elites, who therefore deserve their wealth and power, and the subordination of those without them, who are also experiencing the results of their behavior in previous lifetimes. If there is an inevitable cause-and-effect relationship between one’s actions and one’s fate, there is no need to work toward social justice, because it is already built into the moral fabric of the universe. So why bother to struggle against injustice? This means that you suffer because you deserve too.

1, 2, 3, 4,

Western Karma?

“Western metaphysical authors and teachers, as well as average, ‘mundane’ people, define karma as ‘the law that if you do good, good things will happen to you, and if you do bad, bad things will happen to you.’ In doing this, they identify karma in terms of reciprocity—i.e. you reap what you sew. Now, while this definition certainly gives a quick and dirty explanation of what karma does, it fails to describe what karma is. For this reason, I find this definition to be particularly useless and misleading. There is two outstanding problems with this Western conceptualization of karma: (1) It qualifies karma, often as a negative and disciplinary force and (2) it makes karma objective rather than subjective. Both of these points skew the perception of what karma actually is, and thus this definition of karma undermines the very thing that it is attempting to define. Whether you ardently adhere to a belief in the power of karma or not, chances are that you are familiar with the idea of karma as a disciplinary force. There is a tendency, both within metaphysical communities and with-out, to blame negative occurrences as well as one’s shortcomings and failures on karma. Often times, this sort of blame is meant as a joke. If you are running with a friend and you trip, falling on your stomach, you may get up and laugh off the embarrassment by suggesting to your friend that you tripped because of your ‘bad karma.’ While this action does not necessarily mean that you accept the concept of karma, it certainly does shape both your friend’s and your perception of what karma is. It sets karma up as a disciplinary agent, one that is out to smite you if ever you should mess up. In a sense, this is true: Karma can bring about unfavorable results if we pursue unwholesome actions. Yet, this is a dangerous mindset to get into. To understand this, let’s think about a different situation. Say you get a promotion. Are you likely to attribute this advancement to good karma? Probably not. You will most likely say that you either earned the promotion or that you were awarded it by luck. So, while we are apt to blame karma, we very rarely—if ever!—glorify karma as the source of pleasantries. Although the poplar Western definition of karma does suggest that karma allows for both good and bad outcomes, the malleability of the definition permits it to be skewed to the point that karma becomes an entirely negative process. In modern Hindu culture, the notion of karma is just as present as it was thousands of years ago. (For those who do not know, the idea of karma began with the Vedic [proto-Hindu] population of India.) Yet in its more original Hindu context, the function of karma appears very different from the one conceptualized in the West. In popular Hindu thought, karma is not a disciplinary agent. Rather, it is a means to avoid and to alter unfavorable circumstances. For example, if a Hindu man is plagued by crop failure, he may say that, yes, bad karma has a part in this crop failure. However, rather than dwelling on the effects of his bad karma, he will seek to produce good karma in hopes of counteracting these undesirable conditions. He will use karma as an escape route. Karma is not about retrograding: It is not about accepting or ‘feeling the burn’ of what you have done. It is about becoming, about utilizing life’s moments so as to create things in a better and more pleasing fashion. The Western concept of karma often does not allow for the latter. The Western definition becomes too skewed, too one-sided for this. So what is the actual nature of karma? Good question. There is no one-size-fits-all understanding of karma. As is typical with such elusive matters, there are many different schools and opinions out there. The second major thing wrong about the Western understanding of karma is that it constructs karma as a cosmic law. It is outside of us, a force like gravity which acts upon us; we are at its mercy.” Ref

“In its original form, the word karma was the Sanskrit word for action. More specifically, it referred to the ritualized action of Vedic sacrifice. To perform a sacrifice to the gods, then, was karma. It was the buddha, Gautama Buddha, who changed this. In his teachings on the dharma, the Buddha reshaped the idea of karma. In doing so, Buddha transformed karma from an objective into a subjective experience. His notion of karma could be summed up simply—‘simply’ meaning a simple version—as: ‘The doer becomes the deed.’ In the Buddha’s schema, then, karma was the process of becoming. You were what you did. In common Western understanding, karma is a law. It is a hard fact of nature, something that is separate and outside of ourselves. To say that karma is a law is to say that it is stagnant, and since it is stagnant, we should be able to touch it, to explore it, and to quantify it. It is to say that we can measure things by it, that we can declare things good, bad, better, or worse by holding them up to the ‘karmic ruler.’ If karma were a law, it would have to be non-discriminatory, affecting everything in the same manner: The consequences of one person’s action would have to directly correlate to the consequences of anyone else who performed that same action. Yet, karma does not function in this manner. It is far more relative, affecting each person according to his or her own norms. Thus karma, failing to be truly objective, cannot be a law. A final trap into which Western karmic thought often stumbles is the application of the concept of karma to every experience—after all, in the Western schema, karma is a law, and it therefore must hold constant sway. Thus we begin to say that everything is the product of karma; yet, this is absurd. If I were to die, would that be because of my karma? No, certainly not. Perhaps the circumstances of my death were influenced by my karma, but the death itself is natural. It is no more a product of karma than the need to drink or to breathe is. Yet again, this trend demonstrates that, unbeknownst to the Western frame of mind, karma cannot be an objective law, as it does not blindly permeate all experiences of life. The concept of karma has become a very important cornerstone in a great deal of Pagan traditions who often employ a Westernized understanding of karma, one that qualifies and objectifies karma, turning it into a nuanced and universal law.” Ref

The role of divine forces

Karma is considered one of the natural laws of the mind, just as gravity is a law of matter. Just as God created gravity to bring order to the physical world, He created karma as a divine system of justice that is self-governing and infinitely fair. It automatically creates the appropriate future experience in response to the current action. Several different views exist in Hinduism regarding the role of divine beings. In Hinduism, many see the deities or devas as playing some kind of role. Other Hindus, such as the Mimamsakas, reject such notions and see karma as acting independently, considering the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma. Some interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita suggest an intermediate view, that karma is a law of cause and effect yet God can mitigate karma for His devotees. It is said in Bhagavad Gita that only the karma that is done with a sense of doership and with attachment to the karma could cause good or bad reactions. Karma that is done with an attitude of duty and without attachment to the results will not create any effect and will move one closer to God. Another view holds that a Satguru, acting on God’s behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple. Hindus look at time as a circle, as things cycle around again. Karma is a very just law which, like gravity, treats everyone the same. The law of karma puts man at the center of responsibility for everything he does and everything that is done to him. Understanding the way karma works, Hindus try to live a virtuous life. This is called dharma. There are three types of karma in Hinduism:

sanchita karma, the sum total of past karmas yet to be resolved;
prarabdha karma, that portion of sanchita karma that is to be experienced in this life; and
kriyamana karma, the karma that humans are currently creating, which will bear fruit in future. Ref

Yes, Karma is the Same Old Nonsense

Yes, Karma is the same old nonsense…

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest