Top

The New Nationalist Perspective: Sunic and MacDonald on Christianity (Part 2 of 2)

July 28, 2009

Dr. Tom Sunic and Dr. Kevin MacDonald discuss the crucial issues of evolutionary theory vs Judeo-Christianity, the Meaning of Paganism vs Polytheism, and the role of ‘white nationalists’ in these declining hours of the West. Please tune in! This is an indispensable radio show hosted by two prominent academics. Inform your friends and colleagues!

Edit: Here is a related link to a column on religion written by Dr. Sunic in 1994.

12 MB / 32 kbps mono / 55 min.

Contact Tom:
tom.sunic hotmail.com

Comments

36 Responses to “The New Nationalist Perspective: Sunic and MacDonald on Christianity (Part 2 of 2)”

  1. Paul on July 29th, 2009 7:41 pm

    “Judeo-Christianity” – I truly hate that foul misnomer

    The ties that bind………Oh how they bind..

    A good broadcast guys and nicely balanced.

  2. Bill on July 30th, 2009 12:21 am

    I think Tom Sunic is using his own definition for “Judeo-Christianity”, which is a self-contradicting term. It certainly applies to these Jew-pandering Christian cults like the so-called “Christian Zionists” and many other modern Protestants and I suppose even trendy Roman Catholics, but the term cannot be applied to traditional Christianity. These so-called “Judeo-Christians” are properly called Judaizers, a term well-known to the early Christian writers denoting Christians following any mixture of Jewish traditions or laws. I would even expand that definition to include Christians who adopt Jewish escatology which are heretical in the view of traditional Christianity. St. John Chrysostom probably used the term more than any other Christian writer in his famous denunciations of both Jews and their running dog Judaizers allies. Nothing is new.

  3. Luis Magno on July 30th, 2009 11:42 am

    The problem with Dr. Sunic’s usage of the compound term Judeo-Christianity is that it ignores present usage and facilely dismisses 2000 years of anti-Jewish Christian history.

    Christianity started as a reaction to Talmudic Judaism and remained anti-Jewish until modern times beginning with the political subversion of politically triumphant Anglo-Saxon Protestantism first in England and then in the United States.

    I attribute Dr. Sunic’s misuse of the term as indicative of a misunderstanding of the reality of American Orwellian political theory and practice. I admire Dr. Sunic’s great intellect and encyclopedic knowledge but as patriotic European Americans we are bound to point out his inappropriate use of the term Judeo-Christianity.

    If Dr. Sunic wants to assert that egalitarianism is at the core of the decline of Western culture there are more direct and valid ways of doing so than by diminishing the whole of Christianity and Christian history.

    On the other hand Christianity as a religion, in my reading of the matter, has played only a secondary role in the founding of the United States as a nation-state and its subsequent rise to imperial status. The controversy over Christianity in American history is a tempest in a teapot.

    European Americans need to focus on the real and deadly socio-cultural malignancies that plague and have plagued the US from its Anglo-Saxon beginnings. The white/non-white Melting Pot caste system is the most pervasive malignancy and the least understood.

    The solution to this malignancy is ethno-cultural sovereignty and political parity for all ethno-racial groups including the majority group, the European Americans who because of a lack of understanding and knowledge of their history continue to wallow in their own and implanted intellectual fecal waste matter.

    As a European American who has for decades struggled against the officially sanctioned cultural genocide of the Spanish Americans of the Southwest I can claim a hands-on understanding of what the cultural and political domination of the United States by alien entities entails for European American survival as a race.

  4. george wells on July 30th, 2009 9:13 pm

    Hey, Bill and Luis – you guys are masters of discourse. Luis, so you are not one of us white guys, right?

  5. Luis Magno on July 30th, 2009 11:49 pm

    That’s an ethnic slur, George Wells.

  6. george wells on July 31st, 2009 7:02 pm

    Yes Luis, it was an ethnic slur when you questioned the divine principle behind manifest destiny. That is what made me question your motives.

  7. george wells on July 31st, 2009 7:32 pm

    Dr. Sunic, Great show. Great insights. I appreciate your work.

    The biblical story about the fall of adam from a state of immortality and purity and then redemption through Jesus the Messiah ( as Paul said the first man was Adam and the last man was Jesus Christ) leaves no room about the evolution of man. The biblical story excludes evolution.

    There is no way to reconcile evolution with creation, logically. So when Kevin MacDonald says that people have reconciled this, there must be a major weakness in such people. At least a major weakness in their ability to reason. 1 plus 1 does never vary. Black is never white. Man could never have evolved if he was created perfect.

    There is such a mental gulf between an evolutionist and a creationist that effort to bridge the gulf is really not worth the time.

    In terms of trying to find a group identity to oppose the masters of discourse, my view is that those who believe the biblical myths are a fifth column that would oppose the unity sought.

    (William James in essence said that the true believer’s threshold for evidence to confirm his belief is very low, while the threshold of evidence to disconfirm his belief is almost infinite. So reasoning does not do much good with the true believer.)

  8. Luis Magno on July 31st, 2009 8:10 pm

    George Orwell, or Wells, or whatever: You are misquoting me and purposely lying. And by hurling baseless insults you reveal base motives and a base nature. Your Indian heritage does not serve your claimed whiteness well.

    Have a great day!

  9. george wells on July 31st, 2009 8:20 pm

    Luis, you are a double speaker!!!!!! And a possible a judeo-christian to boot. Probably just an acting judeo-christian.

  10. absurdity buster on August 1st, 2009 9:22 am

    To put it plainly.

    The overwhelming majority of Christian haters, openly anti-Christian individuals in today’s West are multiculturalists, multiracialists, globalists, ultra-liberals, leftists, inimical to any form of racial or ethnic preservation, and there is no conceivable way anyone could possibly “convert” them to the racial preservationism.

    On the other hand, there are Christians who do care about matters pertaining to the racial survival, but who will be (undestandably) repelled by overt and vulgar Christian bashing, as practiced by people like dr. Sunic. Especially if it is done with the support of such nonsensical arguments like: “Jesus was a swarthy Middle Easterner, so we better reject him.” Sunic is neither a pure specimen of the Nordic race, or is he?

    So whom is a movement based on Sunic’s principles likely to attract? Nearly nobody. Or a small cult-like following.

  11. Bill on August 1st, 2009 12:49 pm

    “The biblical story about the fall of adam from a state of immortality and purity and then redemption through Jesus the Messiah ( as Paul said the first man was Adam and the last man was Jesus Christ) leaves no room about the evolution of man. The biblical story excludes evolution.”

    Here’s another example of a nonsensical argument based on a false premise. The Bible begins with a metaphorical story of man’s creation and awareness of his own existence or self-awareness. Its not to be taken literally as the bible thumpers do. Evolution could have occurred before this time, but that’s irrelevant. We’re dealing with man as man, not at any stage during some any evolutionary process. The creation story begins with man in his present state. It doesn’t get into whatever happened before that point because all that is meaningless to the purpose of God’s revelation.

    If the evolution theory ends up being proven incontrovertibly true, then all that means is its just God’s method for bringing about human beings. There’s no theological conflict with Christianity, its only in conflict with the simple-minded and incorrect understanding of certain Protestant Bible-thumpers.

    A Monk Discusses Science and the Old Testament
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPtjS_-WCaY

  12. george wells on August 1st, 2009 1:16 pm

    Mr. Absurdity,

    Your self evident truth is not another’s self evident truth. But if you are indeed a judeo-christian you would probably like to force the fungus of your own mind upon others.

    It would be very telling if you put your mug up against Dr. Sunic’s for us all to judge.

    If you were honest, the judeo-christian concept of the fatherhood of god and the brotherhood of man does not allow for racial preservation because all of us are to be brothers in Christ. That’s pretty clear but there are people who put darkness for light and light for darkness (Isaiah’s words) which is irrational. For some people it might not be irrational but just an evil nature.

    So what is a middle-easterner and what would he look like? Swarthy, probably. Show me Jesus’ barmitzvah’s photos place to show otherwise.

    Hate has nothing to do with this. Its discussion about facts. Galileo was considered a heretic because his observations and theories conflicted with the idea that the earth was fixed and the center of god’s creation. Would you prefer to believe the world is flat in order to eliminate the cognitive dissonance resulting from Galileo’s observations?

    Dr. Sunic makes a good point (as I understand it) that paganism is a deep part of the unconscious western mind and what we consider Christianity has been significantly altered to be consistent with deeply held pagan beliefs or attitudes. Christianity is like a cancer that we learn to live with which is very harmful. To understand Christianity we need to clearly look at its origin and roots. Its origin is from the heart of darkness of the semitic soul. If you are a Christian, you hold a certain honoring of that semitic soul which is unhealthy to you.

    Christianity is about sin, fear, guilt and shame. It is anti-life and anti-nature because man is considered imperfect, fallen and lost so that no persuade is worthy or worthwhile. This world is fallen and therefore worthy to be exploited, reaped down and destroyed. The pagan view is the exact opposite. Its about life, personal value, personal will and harmony with all things of this most wonderful of worlds. Its about living in harmony with the god of nature and preserving its creation.

    Those who experience happiness in Christianity really are unappreciated of the unconscious pagan attitudes they have which makes personal happiness possible for them. The judeo-christian god says you are but dust and worms, just briars for the burning.

  13. george wells on August 1st, 2009 1:34 pm

    Bill,

    If Adam was a metaphor, then Jesus as the Chirst was a metaphor also. Do you believe Jesus was the Christ? for one to be real, the other must be real also. You need to believe Adam was a real man for Jesus to be a real man, otherwise you end up being an anti-christ.

    If you are open to the idea that evolution could be proved to be incontrovertible, your faith in Jesus is not very firm. If you believe that it could be a myth, why defend it. Maybe you could find a firmer foundation in a better interpretation of the facts as you see them.

    How can you divorce the bible from christianity? Calling people bible-thumpers does not deal with their arguments. You say there is no theological controversy between evolution and christianity?

    Sure, as long as you keep your head in a hole in the sand.

  14. Bill on August 1st, 2009 2:34 pm

    “If Adam was a metaphor, then Jesus as the Chirst was a metaphor also. Do you believe Jesus was the Christ? for one to be real, the other must be real also.”

    Totally non sequitur.

    “How can you divorce the bible from christianity? Calling people bible-thumpers does not deal with their arguments. You say there is no theological controversy between evolution and christianity?”

    I’m not divorcing the Bible from Christianity. I’m divorcing heretical and unaccepted interpretations of the Bible from Christianity.

    You apparently think that if you have some particular interpretation of the Bible then it somehow automatically makes it the correct one. Neither your nor anyone else’s private interpretations constitute Christianity. Even the Pope doesn’t claim that much infallibility! And I’m hardly a supporter of the Pope.

  15. george wells on August 1st, 2009 3:54 pm

    How is it non sequitur? You just don’t want to answer the question(s). Answer the question, don’t just dismiss it.

    The bible says certain things. I’ve read it. I interpret it. Does that make me a heretic? Where do heretics go?

    It sounds like you need someone else to interpret the bible for you. That is revolting to me.

    Do you then have a free mind if someone else needs to interpret the bible for you?

    I honestly cannot understand how a person would not want to decide for himself issues of doctrine regarding scripture since his soul is at issue.

    There is a pretty clear message of scripture. You either believe it or you don’t (I don’t), You really aren’t free to say you believe and then ignor or disbelieve the message or messages. There is a serious issue of dishonesty in the approach you are presenting.

  16. Chris on August 1st, 2009 10:03 pm

    George, are you really that intellectually egotistical that you would have such confidence in your intepretation of the bible?

    The Catholic Church has traditionally considered itself to be the correct interpreter of the bible. Those who reject their interpretation are heretics.

    You may well find that revolting. I don’t consider it a question of intellectual freedom but rather deference to authority. I trust that a church with two millenia of tradition understands the bible better than I ever could.

    The radical individualism and egotism that has such as problem with such a concept is, I feel, at the root of our rot.

  17. Bill on August 1st, 2009 11:33 pm

    “The bible says certain things. I’ve read it. I interpret it. Does that make me a heretic? Where do heretics go?

    It sounds like you need someone else to interpret the bible for you. That is revolting to me. ”

    No matter how revolting it may be to you, the fact remains that the Bible was produced by the Church and for the Church. It was not intended to be some intellectual play thing of egotistical people so they could declare this or that interpretation, belief or doctrine legitimate or not. Sorry George, but that’s not what the Bible is for.

  18. Luis Magno on August 3rd, 2009 11:58 am

    Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s review of Eric P. Kaufmann’s “The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America” (http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Kaufmann.html)
    brings out some interesting points, arguments and conclusions.

    Kaufmann’s thesis (according to McDonald) is that American cosmopolitanism (individualism and egalitarian universalism) is an inherent weakness of Anglo-Saxon American culture that has lead to its demise. McDonald’s counter argument is that such a weakness does indeed exist but that it took a hostile outside force to exploit that weakness, namely, American Jewishness, a monstrous cultural hybrid designed to subvert and ultimately destroy its naïve host.

    McDonald’s counter argument loses a great deal of its inherent strength, however, because of the muddle-headedness that permeates his (McDonald’s) thinking, a product of his undue, inexplicable and almost maniacal obsession with the Orwellian concept of Whiteness.

    Nevertheless what McDonald’s counter argument does do is to validate the thesis that it is not the ideology of Judeo-Christianism (Dr. Tom Sunic’s misnamed Judeo-Christianity) and its perverse associations but rather the ideology of Judeo-Anglo-Saxonism and ITS perverse associations that are at the center of the ideological/cultural dilemma facing European Americans (whose ethno-cultural beginnings are Anglo-Saxon) today.

    The demise of Anglo-Saxon America may be a fait accompli but that does not translate into the demise of European America. On the contrary, Anglo-Saxon America’s fall heralds the rise of European America. The ideology of Judeo-Anglo-Saxonism is simply another name for the perverse Orwellian ideology of Whiteness, an ideology that European Americans must resolutely reject.

  19. Paul on August 3rd, 2009 3:29 pm

    Luis,

    Hey amigo:

    “Orwellian concept of Whiteness” and “Orwellian ideology of Whiteness” – george wells said in post No9 on this thread :” Luis, you are a double speaker!!!!!!”

    Well, you’ve certainly proved george right in more ways than one!

    Are you implying that Kevin MacDonald is a White Supremacist?

    Let’s have some proof.

    Also, where can I find the study matter on this elusive “concept and ideology of Whiteness” that you talk so much of?

    When I think of “whiteness” I’m usually checking my cotton knickers after a wash and spin.

    I’m sure Kevin Mac is much the same.

  20. george wells on August 3rd, 2009 4:06 pm

    Luis, you seem to be overly sensative to my comment. I believe in MacBeth there is the phrase, “me thinks the lady doth protect too much.” Put your mug up so we can judge it.

  21. george wells on August 3rd, 2009 4:21 pm

    Chris, Chris, do you need someone to take you by the hand and lead you through life?

    You need your own mind to think for yourself. If you can’t trust your own mind to view a subject and make decisions concerning it, you are a lost person.

    Everything you said above is just so foreign to me. You are really a danger to a fear society and a fifth column among those who fight for freedom.

    Yes, a mind too small to be out wandering by itself unless hand in hand with a big brother figure like some pedophile catholic priest.

    Your ideal is probably Jack Nicholson in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUKOOS after he was made obedient to authority by administration of a frontal lobotomy.

  22. Luis Magno on August 3rd, 2009 7:27 pm

    Mi estimado amigo Paul,

    We can do the innuendo
    We can dance and sing
    When it’s said and done
    We haven’t told you a thing
    We all know that crap is king
    Give us dirty laundry!
    ~ Don Henley, Dirty Laundry, 1982

    What is a “double speaker”????????

    Since our mutual amigo “george wells” has no credibility left lets not count on him to explain anything. He flatters himself in thinking that I take anything he says seriously. He appears to be under the surreal impression that these blogs and my contributions to them center around him personally or around his “white” internet persona however craftily he thinks he has engineered that persona.

    McDonald is in the grip of a malicious Judeo-Anglo-Saxon culturally-implanted semi-conscious group-mind control mechanism so he is not alone and since you are the one implying that he is a “White Supremacist”, not me, it is up to you to disprove it or to prove its opposite, if you wish.

    As to “study matter on this elusive “concept and ideology of Whiteness”” as far as I know there is none although there is plenty of anecdotal evidence but it’s a fair question and I will do an internet search on “Whiteness” and see what I can come up with. For starters you may wish to review the messages on these blogs, read Dr. McDonald’s articles and replay Dr. Sunic’s three dialogues with him.

    I will ‘fess up to one thing, however. I have been rather harsh on my friend Kevin but that is a personal matter between him and me that you need not concern yourself with.

    Tu amigo,
    Ludwig der Grosse

  23. george wells on August 3rd, 2009 7:42 pm

    lUIS,

    “We can do the innuendo
    We can dance and sing
    When it’s said and done
    We haven’t told you a thing
    We all know that crap is king
    Give us dirty laundry!
    ~ Don Henley, Dirty Laundry, 1982″

    WHAT A GAY GUY WOULD QUOTE!!!!!!

    “…in the grip of a malicious Judeo-Anglo-Saxon culturally-implanted semi-conscious group-mind control mechanism…”

    Donald Duck or Porky Pig make more sense when they are mad than you do. Thanks for showing us the real you, NOT!!!!!

    In fact, you are discredited, so you need to start using another user name and change your internet persona artfully.

  24. Luis Magno on August 3rd, 2009 8:26 pm

    Uuuuh! My My! How original and creative thou art. Monkey see, monkey do. You have simian DNA. I wouldn’t insult my “Native American” friends by implying otherwise.

    Have a nice life!

  25. Listener on August 4th, 2009 12:52 am

    I agree with Geroge Wells, all this focus on the “horrible Anglo Saxons” has me quite suspicious.

  26. Listener on August 4th, 2009 12:56 am

    Ah I wish one could trace megaphone users, haha…

  27. Chris on August 4th, 2009 6:25 am

    George, considering the semi-illiteracy and general incoherency of your posts, you’re clearly no intellectual heavy weight, so perhaps you could use a little guidance.

  28. Paul on August 4th, 2009 10:35 am

    Luis,

    Thanks for the advice, but I’ve read Kevin MacDonald’s articles and likewise his books; all of which I’ve purchased.

    The reason you’re unable to find a source for the study and definition of the “Orwellian concept and ideology, of Whiteness” is quite simply this: There isn’t one! – At least not outside your own world view – which is hamstrung by a deep rooted anxiety to warn people to the threat of a complete fiction, forged in the febrile nexus of Judeo/Marxist social theory.

    Indeed, I’m certain, if we examined the pseudo-scientific influences that have plagued your thinking, we would soon arrive at the root of your ill-chosen euphemism (Jewphemisim?):

    Whiteness > Racism > ant-Semitism > Fascism > ‘Studies in Prejudice’ > Frankfurt School > Marx > Talmud > Jew.

    “Orwellian concept and ideology of Whiteness?” – A new social theory but not a word yet written!

    Luis, it’s your baby….so get typing before some ‘clever Jew’ gets hold of it, and adds another ‘Nobel’ to his list of foul achievements(sic).

  29. george wells on August 4th, 2009 1:48 pm

    Chris, arguments have no effect upon you. You are not open to seeing the world other than through the set condition of your mind.

    Scorn shown toward you is probably the only possible means to bring you to salvation.

  30. george wells on August 4th, 2009 1:52 pm

    Chris, you are not here to reason with anyone, to contribute to the building of anything useful or positive. At least to me your contribution has been in the form of amusement.

  31. Chris on August 5th, 2009 4:29 am

    Set condition of my mind? Gee, you’ve got to know me well over the course of two posts.

  32. Ian on August 5th, 2009 9:18 am

    I don’t get it. I fail to see how “evolution” is going to serve a defense for whites. Aren’t monkeys just human beings in waiting ?

  33. Luis Magno on August 5th, 2009 6:28 pm

    To: Paul

    I did a quick search on Ixquick and came up with 366,934 matching results. “Ideology of whiteness” yielded 136,000 hits on Google. The only problem is that the many studies and opinions are all from hostile or unfriendly Judeo-liberal or Marxist perspectives. My analysis is the only genuine pro-European-American perspective.

  34. Paul on August 5th, 2009 6:48 pm

    Luis said::

    “I did a quick search on Ixquick and came up with 366,934 matching results. “Ideology of whiteness” yielded 136,000 hits on Google. The only problem is that the many studies and opinions are all from hostile or unfriendly Judeo-liberal or Marxist perspectives. My analysis is the only genuine pro-European-American perspective”

    Luis, yes I think I said as much here:

    “The reason you’re unable to find a source for the study and definition of the “Orwellian concept and ideology, of Whiteness” is quite simply this: There isn’t one! – At least not outside your own world view – which is hamstrung by a deep rooted anxiety to warn people to the threat of a complete fiction, forged in the febrile nexus of Judeo/Marxist social theory.”

    Have a re-think.

  35. Luis Magno on August 6th, 2009 4:45 am

    To: Paul

    I got over 300,000 hits in an internet search on the ideology of Whiteness. Anybody can do an internet search and verify that fact. Why are you so intent on denying a fact that anyone can so easily confirm?

    And as for “Judeo/Marxist social theory” lets call a spade a spade. The “Judeo” is twice redundant. Karl Marx was a Jew in the paid service of the Judeo-Anglo-Saxon oligarchy. What else could his theories have been but “Judeo”?

    It’s the Anglo-Saxon part that you are missing. “Whitewashing” the truth is integral to the ideology of Anglo-Saxon Whiteness which is now properly referred to as the ideology of Judeo-Anglo-Saxon Whiteness.

    This Orwellian ideology didn’t emerge out of thin air. It had a political origin and a political purpose. It didn’t originate in some Ivory Tower academician’s head as you seem to imply with your repeated calls for “academic studies and definitions”. If that is what you want there are tons of “academic studies and definitions” on the internet. Go for it.

    But if you truly wish to learn about the ideology of Whiteness then read my numerous posts on the subject on the various VOR blogs and apply some creative thinking to those posts rather than romantically wishing for non-existent “academic studies and definitions” to drop on your lap from on high and instantly enlighten you on the subject of Orwellian Whiteness without any effort on your part.

    Ask questions. Stop pontificating on “Judeo/Marxist social theory”. Stop chasing phantoms and start dealing with reality.

  36. Paul on August 6th, 2009 8:28 am

    Luis said:

    “I got over 300,000 hits in an internet search on the ideology of Whiteness. Anybody can do an internet search and verify that fact. Why are you so intent on denying a fact that anyone can so easily confirm?”

    I don’t deny it, I’m only surprised you didn’t get more. However, for a man who’s keen to offer the advice, that I should do more research, you really don’t seem to know how to go about that very process for yourself.

    Luis, try to follow what I’m about to say, because I don’t want to spend the rest of my life being a mother to you.

    The reason you obtained so many hits for “ideology of whiteness” is because you entered that phrase without the inverted commas (quotes).

    You need to search with quotations as a Boolean operator otherwise you’ll get all hits for ”ideology” and all hits for “whiteness”

    If you do as I now advise, and re-Google the phrase with the added quotes, you will get less than 4,000 hits. To paraphrase yourself: “this is a fact that anyone can so easily confirm.”

    So far so good, but we need to be even more specific in your particular case.

    How so?

    Luis, the phrases that you continually use are these: “the Orwellian concept of Whiteness” and “the Orwellian ideology of Whiteness” – and you have acknowledged these as being uniquely your own:

    “ My analysis is the only genuine pro-European-American perspective.”

    Thus you confirmed my own prior opinion:

    “Luis…The reason you’re unable to find a source for the study and definition of the “Orwellian concept and ideology, of Whiteness” is quite simply this: There isn’t one! – At least not outside your own world view…”

    Now, if you’re still with me, let’s redo the search for:

    1: “Orwellian ideology of Whiteness” and 2: “Orwellian concept of Whiteness” – this time with the required quotes.

    On Google both searches produced only 5 hits – 2 of each phrase came from VoR; and are sourced to your posts and replies to such; and 1 other hit was found here:

    http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=2848

    This is from a poster who on June 29th, was sounding off, amongst other things, about the “Orwellian “white” qualifier“ and “Orwellian concept of whiteness”

    Needless to say, that this poster none other than; “Luis Magno” – meaning you!

    Luis, someone has to tell you that you have a serious problem with white people. In fact, your behaviour carries the irrational stench of hatred without cause, and that’s a worry. But to develop that hatred into your own pseudo-scientific “Orwellian” belief system, and tar a whole race of people with guilt, is quite frankly shocking, and a cause of great concern.

    Luis, you have a racial chip on your shoulder the size of Gibraltar, and one day someone might just knock it off – Until then, I hope you learn to exercise more caution before handing out advice, to those who are least in need it.

Bottom