[menu] Human Rules the heuristics of being who I am by j jackson

It's not agoraphobia. It's just a very bad habit-- and probably depression--but I never feel sad. The time is fast approaching (it may already be past time) to go out into the world again. I don't mean on a permanent basis. I only mean for a few brief hours, here and there. After all, it is now spring, and warm. Weather-wise, it's summer. It could hit ninety tomorrow. What's going on here? Global warming is upon us. Is this one of the end-time plagues? Did another angel pour its vial upon the earth? Into the Pacific, as El Nino? Warm weather prompts me to want to go out, and not only literally out, but metaphorically as well. When I come to a mindset like this, you know... The time is coming when, we will all be out, not in the streets, but of our minds. But before that time, I will continue to slip out slowly, because I am not Jesus retreating into in the desert for forty days, certainly, and would never dare to stick my damn neck out too far. But just a little bit.

Jesus, disgusted with the excesses and abuses of the temple priests, mobilized the outcasts who were excluded from the temple (prostitutes, lepers, criminals, etc.) against the staid religious hierarchy. It was only common sense, then, that, when he was killed by the establishment, his followers, being rebels, would want to keep him alive, since they were looking to find a messiah, and now that they had one, it would be a shame to let him go just because he died. Jesus became the focal point for the revolution, maybe intentionally. He was the emblem, the code. It was natural that a new religion would spring up because Jesus was bypassing the temple and presuming to speak for God separate from it. I speak only for myself. But it seems to be a different self.

So, the question for me now is: Do I want to be normal, or do I want to be weird? The answer is, yes. Both. One or the other, at different specific times. There are advantages to being seen as either. And disadvantages. I feel like I "should" go out, but don't want to. It's warm and sunny out, the grass needs to be cut and the hedges need to be trimmed. I want to go shopping to take advantage of food sales. I want to buy discretionary items. During these times, when I cannot quite motivate myself into action, I consider the advantages of staying in, which decreases, temporarily, my outward-directed imperative, thus intensifying the conflict. Waiting, incommunicado, inside, for something to happen locally that I can report on, or for something to happen in the world of unfolding ("breaking") news, I justify my existence through rationalization: The world's a dangerous place. To be out in it for very long is to court disaster. The more I stay inside, the more money I save, the more hedged I am against the future. And inside means also inside myself. I am more myself when I am off alone. Others' influences (transferences) redirect me in unwitting ways I do not wish to go. I am less al(l-)one when I am out experiencing the multiplicity of things. I understand and admire the behavior of Jesus, how he anguished over what he should do, went off into the desert for forty days to pray, obviously (heuristically concluded) the culmination of a life of angst similar to mine, until he forced himself to the conclusion that it was his duty to act on his beliefs. So he set out intentionally to influence the political situation, not in the ordinary way that people (potential followers of a Messiah) would expect him to act, i.e., as a leader of an armed rebellion), but in his own unique way, colored by his scriptural education and his own sense of self, God, and cosmic consciousness. He mobilized the outcasts in his benign, yet intentional way in order to challenge the authority of the religious, and perhaps the civil, leaders. [Jesus may have forgiven people their sins, not because he felt he had the power to forgive sins, but just to piss off the Jewish authorities, in the same sarcastic, satiric way he turned the other cheek.]

RULE #1 It's not enough not to do anything wrong. You've got to do something right. I've been considering my "mission" in life, again. I do this from time to time. I even have a mission statement, which I revise occasionally. (Maybe this is what I'm doing now. We'll see.) I haven't done this in a while now, since I haven't so much felt the need to justify my existence, i.e., I haven't felt the guilt (superego) associated with living differently than mainstream society. [Maybe I'm improving. Nah. I doubt it. Must be a local anomaly.] This latest investigation into the purpose of my life is prompted by my ongoing heuristic studies of the life of Jesus. I struggled with this nature for a long while now, until I finally come to a clear understanding of it: Jesus was just a man, nothing more. Actually, I've always felt this, all of my adult life, that is. But I've never clearly understood it rationally, or logically. (It takes a long while to overcome the brainwashing of culture that you suffer when you're young. Most people never overcome it.) Jesus "charmed" people (just as I am accused of doing). But he (as I, at least I strive to) did it in a genuine way; he was not one of those slick, phony "charmers" who works in a boardroom and schmoozes people for the purpose of doing business. He was very much the opposite. And yet, he did have an agenda. It may have been a noble one, or it may not have been so non-parochial, but it was an agenda. I use my charm (ideally) as a intro/segue into a kind of Zen presence/contact when I am out among people (as Jesus did, but did he do this as a goal in and of itself, or was this simply a technique in service to another purpose, namely, social revolution? [Is it even necessary that these two exclude each other, i.e., can one be both spiritual and political? What am I saying? Of course not.] What I try to do is what I'd always thought that Jesus did, but maybe not. Now that I better understand his political purpose, I see that maybe he was far more agenda-ized than I want to be. (I'd like to have that kind of agenda, that is, I'd like to have a caustic or precipitive social purpose, but I can't see that it does much good, I can't see that it's worth the trouble, the turmoil, the disruption of my peace of mind. But, wait. Maybe I am going there, at least in part. I've certainly been there a lot in my past, and maybe I'm missing an unconscious purpose here, a role that destiny is causing me to play, despite myself. More of this later, but first: I, myself, apart from fate or overriding purpose, would like my life to be a living example of a Zen state of enlightenment, a communion. I hide away because I feel this motive too much, often, when I am "out." When I am out, I am out, revealed, the more so, the more I learn of life. The only thing that keeps me sane is the knowledge that most people are not developed enough to be aware of how I am revealed. I am transparent (as others are transparent to me, more and more the more I learn), and so I stay away from people, so that my transparency is not so easily seen through. I protect my soul, which others have (always, even, or especially, when I was not so aware of it) manipulated, causing me much turmoil in my life. I call the Zen-like state I adopt in reaction to this turmoil "communion," but it is only that in its most ideal manifestation. Anything short of that ideal is manipulation. I constantly fight myself to prevent my ego from manipulating people via the abilities I have developed through the study of psychology combined with an innate and unconsciously practiced guile. (I could charm the pants off almost anyone, which I choose not to do. Ain't that nice of me?) This state, when going out (the state exists when I am within too, and more perfectly, because the interaction is far more spiritual, being of necessity non-physical; it is only when going out, when the potential for physical interaction is "real," that the profundity of my ability becomes apparent to me. "Inside," I maintain an ability to see through people without their interfering with my own inner state, while at the same time, more easily forgoing the power trip that inevitably gets me into trouble when I am "out" too long), is temporary, now, catalyzed and maintained by my presence--by everyone's, really, but mostly unconsciously on others' parts, at least as I am aware of it, at least in regard to me. It's a state existing for its own sake. This is what I mean when I say that I do not have an agenda. I do have an agenda, of course. Everyone does. But my ideal does not. The state I strive toward (unlike the state I now understand Jesus to have maintained, a political one, at least in part; maybe he did, also, strive toward a more spiritual existence--yes, of course he did) is one of "response," or reactivity, as opposed to proactivity. I do not approach, but neither do I, ideally, shy away. (Sometimes, my reaction is to shy away, as when I perceive and echo the withdrawal of another who approaches me only out of a "need" that flies in the face of an opposite inner motive, or when the approach, usually aggressive in this case, is a compensation for or reaction against an inner motive that the person hates or cannot otherwise deal with. But, sometimes, when approached in this way, especially when I am under stress, I counterattack. More of this later, ala the above 'later' comment.) My ideal state (which is what I always strive for when going out; this is why I stay inside, because I can't live my ideal state so well when I am out, and so have to stay "inside" and practice it for long periods of time and take it out with me to exercise it only on occasion) is one of "no approach," but "no retreat" either, a response state that does not impose, but graciously and openly responds to benign approach, allowing it, reflecting back the good vibes, while stonewalling all bad ones, filtering the mix and thus clearly delineating via my (non)activity the difference between "good" and "evil" intent, revealing the entrenched forces of conservative (by which I mean, not political, but socio-economic, if those two can ever really be separated) intolerance for exactly what they are, by their behavior, but not as an agenda on my part. Rather, as an anti-agenda, as consequence that emphasizes response and even anti-response (stonewalling). But, sometimes [this is the 'later' now], a sub-routine initiates itself (as I've indicated elsewhere; often during times of stress). I call it the Avenging Angel Syndrome. It upsets me a great deal when this happens, but almost always, later, I see the wisdom, if not the prudence, that provoked it. I worry that, despite my conscious effort to be so "good," so "tame," this is my real purpose, that "God" (or universal nature) in its infinite wisdom acts through me (or is it some other, more local, force?), setting right errors of social interaction when they occur. I hate that this will happen. Or, I don't hate it, I love to see the results, but I hate that it is I who must be the initiating agent. But what can I do? It's always automatic. I would never consciously choose this course of action. Inaction has always been for me the preferred way to "interact."

Jesus felt disenfranchised, despite the fact that he was in a relatively good social position, poised to take a valid, if common, place in society. But he was too intellectual, too spiritual, too insightful for his times (or for any time; we still see this same pattern today. Do things really ever change?) Thus, he turned to the outcasts, among whom he found a common ground of disenfranchisement, and he aligned himself with them to form a power base. But, as it turned out, it was an ineffectual base. I seem to want to do this too, to form a simpatico with the lowest classes, but something prevents me--probably the fact that the lower you descend in social strata, the stupider people get. And I hate stupid people. This is probably denial and projection. On the other hand, maybe this is an intuitive lesson learned from history: you can't get there from here. As a practical matter, if I wanted to start a revolution, that would be the way I'd go about it. [But revolutions always backfire, when the revolutionaries take over the power structure and are assimilated into it. True revolutionaries are in continual revolt, against even the revolution.] But Jesus' revolution was (also) spiritual and, as such, was not really understood even by his followers, who were looking for immediate results. In a very real sense, "Christianity" awaited (and still awaits) not only social development (true democracy, which we haven't yet achieved), but a physiological evolution of the human mind as well. RULE #2 The human mind intuits grace, which is not a human trait--except that, knowing it, we desire it for ourselves, and dream it into being.

I was selectively erasing old movies off of tapes last night, and one of the films was JC Superstar, which I wanted to save, so I began scanning through it, watching my favorite scenes, one of which is "I Don't Know How To Love Him." [I didn't realize it was Easter weekend. Being sort of a pagan (not really, but...), I don't keep up on the major holidays, and unless some reminder pops up, I don't know they're here or coming. So, don't you think it's kind of funny--that I would have coincidentally been watching JC while not knowing it was Easter weekend? Hmm. Maybe there is a personal God and He's sending me a message. Nah!] Then I fell asleep and had a dream: I'm a postal worker, delivering mail out of a truck, which I have parked on a steep hillside. (Life is a steep hillside.) Another postal worker, a nice woman, a blond, is also delivering mail on the same road. She takes an interest in me. (She doesn't seem to think it's odd that I'm working the same route as she is.) I am an imposter. The mailman thing is a disguise. In order to avoid becoming revealed to her, I keep my distance, even though she seems to want to associate with me. But, after saying a few brief words to her, I stand off, farther down the hill. I don't want to get too close, because if she gets to know me too well, she'll discover I'm not a real mailman. (Hmm.) She comes down to the bottom of the hill where I am and stands nearby, hesitant to approach me, but wanting to. She says something about not wanting to get involved with me, that she's sorry, but she can't get too close. I recognize this, while I'm dreaming, as my idea, not hers. i.e., she's empathizing with me, feeling what I'm feeling and stating it as if it is her own feeling [Of course, from a perspective outside the dream, we can see that it is all my feeling, hers and mine. She's me in another disguise telling myself I don't want to become involved, with myself, I don't want to know what it is I'm really feeling, I don't really want to know the truth that lies within. She (the anima) is the one who wants to get closer; I (the ego) am the one who wants to stand off.] So, I awaken and begin to analyze the dream in terms of JC Superstar. Was this JC's problem too? Did he want to, or need to, keep women (those intuitive components/symbols of his own internal self) at a distance, to avoid physical contact? Why would he? To promote his spiritual self, of course; to develop his own internal/external balance. Women represent the ways of the world to a man. And at the same time, they represent the anima, the spiritual self within. So, to avoid women in the physical world is to search for the woman within. Mary Magdalene is attracted to Jesus, because he stands off from her physically and yet is psychologically, or spiritually, or whatever, totally available to her. I know this situation, intimately. I've been there, many times. Even way back when I was totally unconscious of the mechanism, it functioned. Women have always chased after me--for this very reason, I conclude: I allow myself to be available, but never physically except under the most rigid conditions. (Pun intended.) So I am not so much like Jesus, then, am I? I do physically avoid women who are interested in me--but only until I know their intentions and (mostly unconscious) motivations well. Then I may act or, more likely, give them tacit permission to act themselves. But as I grow in "wisdom" (I guess that's what it is), as I learn to consciously discern motivation, I realize that, inevitably, if I act, if I become physically involved, there will be problems. It's unavoidable, given the differences between the sexes. (But maybe it is unavoidable in any case.) But if I do not act, if I refrain, yet remain otherwise open, things go on the way they are, maybe not with any particular woman, but with women in general. (This should apply to men too, if I am to be universal, but I am not that brave--or am I merely unconsciously homophobic? or homosexual? They're the same thing really, one being denial and the other admission. I should remain open toward everyone, so that no agenda is harbored. But I am not.) It's a shame, that I have this innate ability that I rarely ever use, or even attend to [I've had it since early childhood, as far back as I can remember, although I did not attend to it through my earlier years, and do not attend to it often now, for example, through the winter when I will become increasingly closed off, or any time, when circumstances impinge upon me, threatening my psychological integrity. I would never stand for allowing the lepers to drain me of my psychic energy (as depicted in the film)]: to open myself up to people, especially women, even when I am totally unconscious of what is going on, so that they will feel what I feel, and vice versa, so that we will become like one being--because that is what we really are, after all, one undifferentiated organism, on the spiritual level, and one less-differentiated organism on the psychological level. (It is only on the physical level where things become confused. I am a physical being, after all. But I don't so much like it, when it comes to existing within a physical world where cause and effect are so specific.) Women appreciate me for this ability open up to them, but only until they realize that they cannot command it exclusively, that I will not be only "theirs," alone. Then, they keep their (physical) distance (because they do not trust me--or themselves--to remain a separate being, they do not want to feel what it is I feel if they cannot feel it physically as well, if they cannot enter into an (at least temporary) exclusive physical relationship with me. (Actually, they could, very easily, but they do not know how; it is not within their natures. They don't know how to love me.) When women become aware of me, after a while, as women do, they begin to share their insights with other women, after they decide that I am just too far away for them to reach within their physical world, and they realize that I am a different kind of man. Or maybe not, Maybe they assume that I am exactly the same, but better at it--or worse. Maybe they never see the spiritual side. In any case, I begin to become famous, or infamous, depending on the point of view of the particular coven. I don't think I want to become famous, in any way, because with celebrity comes responsibility, and I want to remain irresponsible. I'm having fun right now and I don't want it to end. Commitment ends the fun. I know. I've been there. Being famous, for me, is just a subset of responsibility, as is commitment. I don't want to work so hard any more at trying to appease an ungrateful social order that exists to govern the whole at the expense of its individual components. I'd rather just "work" on my own, at my own tasks, independent of a need to "earn" a living. Existing within a physical world where each person must assure his or her own survival is like living in a war. You've got to be on continual guard against attacks on your resources. War teaches you to keep your guard up, to protect your individuality, which may come under attack at any moment. We are each a slave to the environment we find ourselves in, which is usually a war zone. I remember being taught in high school that the civil war was fought, not over slavery, but over states' rights. That view is still espoused to this day, even though it's an inherently racist one. [It's intent is to diminish the victimization of slaves by drawing attention away from their oppression and onto the "more important" issue of the right of a state (considered as if it were a separate nation, which is what state's rights was/is all about)]. The civil war was not fought over states' rights. It was fought over slavery. And one simple fact proves it: the Confederate constitution disallowed any state to abolish slavery, thus establishing Confederation's authority over states' rights, making the issue of slavery more important that the right of an individual state to determine its own essence. In doing this, the Confederacy violated its own motive: it fought to free itself from the domination of a federal government that tended to want to abolish slavery, which it felt was the right of each individual state to allow, but in establishing its alternate government, it created a mirror image of the very thing it fought to escape from. This is what I do. This is what I become, that which I fight so hard to avoid. This is what happens to anyone, eventually, when they exist within an environment. You cannot live apart from your environment. Always, you submit to its nature and surrender your identity. RULE #3 You can't escape the responsibility of your existence.

I tell someone something about myself that is true, but too complex to be immediately understood, seeming to fly in the face of common sense and logic until enough information can be transmitted to make the issue clear. And almost always, in one form or another, ranging from mildly joking to outright ignorant, they ridicule me for what they consider my ill-opinion. This is a pattern I've had to deal with all my life. But what they don't see, even when they will come to understand the complexity of my logic, when I take the time to succeed in explaining it to them, is how foolish I know them to be when they dismiss me with off-hand comments (they'll do it again, and again, to me and to others; they never learn), thinking I'm weird, or misguided, or a hypochondriac. I've always been able to penetrate apparent truth, to dig down below the surface to see more complex arrangements, to see what more superficial people do not care to see. (This is the essence of my rebellion, that I will not accept conventional, consensual definitions, because I feel a more complex truth at work that I need to get at.) A good example of this phenomenon of non-acceptance of my explanations is my back problem. It's taken me a lifetime to fully understand this difficulty, to put the pieces of the puzzle, one by one, into place. My back is affected by the weather. When it gets warm and humid, my vertebrae joints swell, causing me some considerable pain. And even in the depth of winter when I take a hot bath or a long hot shower and the moisture in the bathroom air rises, my back is affected. When the joints become inflamed, signals through the nerves from the spine are attenuated, causing physical problems down the line. My heart begins to race. Breathing becomes difficult and dyspnea occurs. Heart palpitations eventually begin if I do not take steps to alter the environment. I know from experience to take these difficulties seriously. I've been hospitalized with an irregular heartbeat four times in my later life thus far. No one wants to hear this explanation, though. They'd rather hear more ordinary, simpler words like I have an irregular heartbeat and have it left at that. And if I simply state that taking a long hot shower leaves me out of breath, nauseous, and barely able to stand, so that I think I might pass out, I am ridiculed, at best, as engaging in hyperbole, and, at worst, as lying my ass off in order to get out of doing something I don't want to do in favor of lying down for half-an-hour until my system returns to normal. (During these times, the last thing I feel like doing is explaining what the problem is.) People would rather attribute their own superstitious sense of logic to my problems/psychology. Even my doctor dismissed this explanation when I tried to outline it for him. It took me three visits to make him finally understand. He needed time for the logic to sink in. He's no longer my doctor. I need a more immediate, open-minded advisor. But there aren't any. This phenomenon is extensive. It doesn't just apply to medical problems. It's ubiquitous across human nature. You're all a bunch of ignorant assholes. I even catch myself doing this very thing sometimes to others. But we all already know that I'm an asshole. RULE #4 Don't believe a word I say. Everything I say is a lie.

I'm always trying to live my life and do my art according to rules that I write for myself. But I always end up changing the rules to fit the way I work, rather trying to work to the rules, because rules suck, man. The only time that rules are good is when they correspond exactly to what you are trying to accomplish. schedule considerations a daily journey (as opposed to plans and goals): primary: writing / the Internet / my "art" > posting secondary: surviving / house / estate tertiary: out / contact / social my basic daily schedule: (idealized, as if I were a reporter) e-mail Internet > process info > learn writing back-up files minimum daily work list (house maintenance, etc.) Website design and development & computer work various projects & activities relax / read / tv / read and watch the news If it were important that I get my "news" (i.e., my input) in a timely manner (such as in Hardball's newsletter, whose business is timely news), then the above might be a good schedule. But my business isn't so timely. I work in monthly blocks and "report" more or less weekly. Breaking news is not my concern. I focus on news that's already been broken, so... The following schedule is a better one, because what's important to me is that I make writing progress, and my mind is most prepared for writing when it's fresh. I can pull together the threads gathered during the previous day's later-in-the-day activities at the beginning of my new day, when I'm well rested and after it's been filtered through my dreams. The rest of the day, then, is for further accumulation. my basic daily schedule: (prioritized) writing e-mail Internet > process info > learn back-up files ---------- outside / read ---------- minimum daily work list (house maintenance, etc.) Website design and development & computer work various projects & activities ---------- relax / tv / etc. The following is a schematic of my work/life system. I go through this exercise once or twice a year, not as a matter of procedure so that I might clarify how I should be working, but as a necessary part of my psychology, that I might better clarify how I should be working. What I'm trying to say is that I feel compelled to do this, not for my "business" purposes, but for personal reasons. I'm driven to do it, when I could be using my time more productively. Or could I? This compulsion keeps my purpose clear and lights the way. If I continued to work on without having done what I am otherwise compelled to do, though I might get a lot more things done, I might waste a lot more time doing unnecessary or irrelevant things. [This particular manifestation of this exercise took me over eight hours and went through several revisions before I got something I was satisfied with. Compulsion? Or necessary planning? Or both? (Since I'm posting this into a pastiche on my website, it becomes valid work. It becomes a product. I can rationalize anything.)] RULE #5 Everyone is everyone else, and everything is everything else.

Not only am I many different things, but I am also many different people, among whom a person named I is included. A lot of the time I don't know who I is, or I am. I is a person I know, who lives inside me and sees through my eyes? All of the others I am also see through my eyes. Or else, I see through theirs, I'm not sure which. All I know for certain is, eyes see. When I write, often different people inform me of the same different things and even on occasion write them out for me. I are very prolific in this way. When I meet myself, in crowds, I become confused, but otherwise, from an opposing point of view, I hardly notice. I think, then, that I know what I'm doing, and I always think I know more than I do, because I is more aware than I actually am. I transfers her insights into me via traditional psychological mechanisms so that she can see herself in whom she thinks is another person that she is. At any given moment, you can never know who it is I am. You might think that this is so very strange, but the problem with that attitude is that you are actually this very same way since, as you read this, you are me, reading about yourself whom you have written of. For this reason, fiction can never make sense, because it is always telling the truth. When I write about other people, it's because I know them, intimately, having transferred and countered their psychologies. Otherwise, I could never have known. I never write about things that I don't know. That would be foolish. But I do know about you, I mean, about me, I mean about I. Since everyone is everyone, you suffer when others suffer, especially when you inflict the cause of their suffering, because all suffering is self-inflicted. When you act, for example, in a prejudicial way toward members of a different race, you suffer from the indignity that you bestow upon yourself that you cannot see, but others can, and so may shun you when you do not know it or may act in other ways to diminish your prosperity and well-being. You may, for example, never know the real reason why you did not get a certain job or were fired from your last one, because your reputation as a bigot proceeds you without you knowing it. In this same way, others, members of another race, for example, suffer, when they adopt an attitude toward you for being the prejudiced way you are. RULE #6 Unknown suffering limits our potential by invoking the past when we think we are acting for our future betterment.

Proposing reparations for blacks is just another way that blacks keeps themselves in their places instead of freeing their spirits to join the real democracy. It's a mindset that keeps the race locked in a victim mode. A proactive agenda on the part of individual blacks will do far more than any government program, subsidy, or handout ever could, because such activity frees the individual from the pattern of enslavement to poverty. The problem for the race is that it requires individual action that doesn't always (in fact, most often does not) translate into social conscience. Blacks who "make it" as likely as not estrange themselves from their race, become republicans, and tend to feel that since they made it by themselves every other black should be able also to do it. (This may be true, but it isn't very nice.) The problem with that (conservative) attitude is that they probably didn't make it by themselves, but in the process of making it, they learn to ignore the less fortunate members of their race, their support base, and the liberal whitey elements that enabled their rise toward the top. (It's human nature, folks. Blacks are proving themselves to be just like everyone else.)1 Legislation, court orders, and government in general, cannot mandate freedom from suffering. Only individuals can do that for themselves on a case by case basis. If you are suffering, nothing anyone else can do can mediate it, no matter what the Mother Theresa's of the world may think--and for that matter, no matter what the people who suffer from the illusion that they have been helped by the Mother Theresa's may think. If your suffering is relieved, it is because you chose to relieve it, outside influences notwithstanding. You chose to separate yourself out enough from others, from the world, which is the real cause of all suffering. You chose to break, to the degree necessary, the illusion that binds you to the physical environment that you think is so real. Either we are all together in this thing we call suffering mankind, or we are not. If we are not, then where are we? RULE #7 No one exists unless everyone exists, together. Conclusion: Being, who I am, is an illusion.

Click on the footnote number to return to that respective place in the text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. In this piece, I use the term "black" instead of the more acceptable term "African-American" (Is it still so acceptable? Maybe not) simply because it's shorter and less cumbersome. I'll call blacks Afro-Americans when they stop calling me white (which I'm not; I'm tan) and start referring to me as a Euro-American.

[top] [menu]