@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

RD4Anarchy

@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social

THC-infused, dada-inspired boomer, latecomer to anarchism, literally living the meme now in my mother's basement, with my partner and two cats.
No tankies, campists or ancaps tolerated.
he/him

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

RD4Anarchy, to random
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

HOW DID WE GET HERE?
(a thread of threads, quotes, and links)

This is a collection of writings and research concerned with how we got where we are today, which is in fact the story of what has been done to us, and what has been taken from us.

By "us" we're talking about "the 99%", "workers", "wage slaves", all non-owners of private property, "the poor", unhoused people, indigenous people, even plenty of people who swear by capitalism and identify as "capitalist" yet have no capital of their own and no serious hope of ever having any worth speaking of. In other words almost everyone except for the very few who have had the power to exploit us and shape our lives to serve their agenda. We're going to examine institutions and concepts that have deeply altered our world at all levels, both our external and internal realities.

By "here" we are talking about climate crisis and myriad other environmental catastrophes resulting from hyper-excessive extraction, consumption and waste; a world of rampant inequality and exploitation, hunger and starvation; a world of fences, walls, tollbooths, prisons, police, bullshit jobs and criminalized poverty; a world overrun with cars and preventable diseases; a world of vanishing biodiversity and blooming fascism; a world where "democracy" results in being led by some of the worst of humanity; a world ruled by an imaginary but all-powerful and single-minded god: Capital.

Our inspiration and structural framework for this survey is this quote from "The Prehistory of Private Property", an important work from political philosopher Karl Widerquist and anthropologist Grant S. McCall:

"After hundreds of millennia in which all humans had direct access to the commons, it took only a few centuries for enclosure, colonialism, capitalism, and industrialization to cut off the vast majority of people on Earth from direct access to the means of economic production and therefore to rob them of the power to say no. It took only a few generations to convince most people that this situation was natural and inevitable. That false lesson needs to be unlearned."

https://widerquist.com/books-3/#2b

Also recommended: "Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy"

https://widerquist.com/books-3/#4b

1/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

A big part of this false lesson is the fantasized history that serves as its foundation; the stories we've been told and the assumptions we've been conditioned with.

To introduce us to "A new understanding of human history and the roots of inequality" here is the TED talk by archaeologist David Wengrow (link includes transcript):

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_wengrow_a_new_understanding_of_human_history_and_the_roots_of_inequality/transcript?language=en

2/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

To explore this new understanding further here is a more detailed look at the stories we've been told and who has been telling them:

"How to change the course of human history (at least, the part that’s already happened)"
by anthropologist David Graeber and David Wengrow:

https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-history/

3/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

Understanding the state of things requires us to understand The State. Here's a crash course:

https://www.thecommoner.org.uk/the-state-our-ancient-enemy/

4/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

Next we're going to meet a monster and do our best to kill it. This monster is the ghost of the man John Locke, a philosopher known as "the father of liberalism". We're going to spend some time dragging Locke through the mud because his ideas became a lynchpin in our whole system of property, justifying atrocities that continue even as we read this together now. It's not that Locke was single-handedly responsible for our plight, but he does serve as an example of the kind of men who used high-sounding words and "moral" arguments to draw us all into a nightmare that enables them to "live the dream".

We'll start with this excerpt from an article by political economist @blair_fix "Can the World Get Along Without Natural Resources?" (by all means read the entire excellent article, but for now this excerpt serves our purposes):

"The original sin

From its outset, the field of political economy was not designed, in any meaningful sense, to understand resource flows. Instead, it was designed to explain class relations. The goal of early political economists was to justify the income of different classes (workers, landowners and capitalists). They chose to do so by rooting this income in the ‘production of wealth’. What followed from this original sin was centuries of conflating income with ‘production’. This conflation is what allowed Robert Solow to proclaim that the world could “get along without natural resources”.

Let’s retrace this flawed thinking. It starts with a failure to understand property rights. Political economists largely understand property as a productive asset — a way of thinking that dates to the 17th-century work of John Locke (or perhaps earlier). Locke proclaimed that property rights stemmed from ‘natural law’. A man, Locke argued, has a natural right to own what he ‘produces’:

...every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.

Locke’s thinking became known as the ‘labor theory of property’. This theory (and its derivatives) is why political economists misunderstand the role of natural resources. Here’s what happens. If we accept Locke’s argument that you have a right to own what you produce, it follows that your wealth should stem from your output.

Most political economists after Locke accepted this reasoning (at least in part). That meant that the debate was not about whether wealth was ‘produced’, but rather, about which ‘factors of production’ were ‘productive’. The physiocrats thought land alone was productive. Marx insisted that only labor was productive. Neoclassical economists proclaimed that, alongside labor, capital too was productive. The debate between these schools played out over centuries. The problem, though, is that it’s based on a flawed premise. The debate assumes that value is ‘produced’. (It’s not.)

To see the flaw, let’s go back to Locke’s theory of property rights. Notice that it’s not really a ‘theory’ in the scientific sense. It doesn’t explain why property rights exist. It explains why they ought to exist. Locke proclaimed that a man ought to own what he produces. That is his ‘natural right’.

This change from ‘is’ to ‘ought’ is important. It means that we’re not dealing with a scientific theory. We’re dealing with a system of morality. The philosopher David Hume was perhaps the first to understand this moral sleight of hand. He noticed that moral philosophers made their arguments more convincing by framing what ‘ought’ to be in terms of what ‘is’. Here’s Hume reflecting on this trick:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence.

With David Hume’s observation in mind, let’s return to Locke’s ‘theory’ of property. It’s not a ‘theory’ at all — it’s a moral treatise. According to Locke, we ought to own what we produce. But that doesn’t mean that we do.

To see the consequences of this mistake, we need an actual scientific theory of property rights — a theory that explains why property exists, not why it ‘ought’ to exist. The most convincing theory of private property, in my opinion, comes from the work of Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler. To understand property, Nitzan and Bichler argue that we should turn Locke’s idea on its head. Property isn’t a ‘natural right’. It’s an act of power.

Property, Nitzan and Bichler observe, is an act of exclusion. If I own something, that means that I have the right to exclude others from using it. It’s this exclusionary power that defines private property. Here are Nitzan and Bichler describing this act:

The most important feature of private ownership is not that it enables those who own, but that it disables those who do not. Technically, anyone can get into someone else’s car and drive away, or give an order to sell all of Warren Buffet’s shares in Berkshire Hathaway. The sole purpose of private ownership is to prevent us from doing so. In this sense, private ownership is wholly and only an institution of exclusion, and institutional exclusion is a matter of organized power.

When we think like Nitzan and Bichler, we get a very different view of income. Recall that most political economists see property in terms of the ‘things’ that are owned. They then argue that income stems from these ‘things’. Nitzan and Bichler upend this logic. Property, they argue, is about the act of ownership — the institutional act of exclusion. Income stems from this exclusionary act. We earn income from the fence of property rights, not from what’s inside the fence. In other words, if you can’t restrict access to your property, you can’t earn income from it."

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/06/18/can-the-world-get-along-without-natural-resources/

5/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

Here are two short threads from @HeavenlyPossum on the Labor Theory of Property and John Locke:

https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110164109548612913

https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/109465708774475922

6/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

More on Locke and others like him from "The Prehistory of Private Property":

"Locke could hardly have been unaware that his theory provided a justification for an ongoing process disappropriating European commoners and indigenous peoples alike or that that process amounted to redistribution without compensation from poor to rich. This observation raises serious doubts that the principles contemporary propertarians have inherited from him reflect some deeper commitment to nonaggression or noninterference.

Lockeanism eventually revolutionized the world’s conception of what property was by portraying full liberal ownership as if it were something natural that had always existed, even though it was only then being established by enclosure and colonialization. Lockean and propertarian stories might have been more important than their theories in that effort. The “original appropriator” in Locke’s story resembles European colonialists rather than prehistoric indigenous North Americans who first farmed the continent. Locke’s appropriator establishes the fee-simple rights that colonial governments (building a global cash economy) tend to establish rather than the complex, overlapping rights indigenous farmers in stateless societies tend to establish."

"The intent of Blackstone, Locke, Grotius, and other early modern property theorists was not to describe what property actually was or even what kind of institutions most people wanted at the time. Instead, it was “a common strategy of claiming the ground of property so as to preempt serious consideration of alternatives like common property” [Olsen,E. J. 2019, “The Early Modern ‘Creation’ of Property and its Enduring influence,” European Journal of Political Theory, Online Early, 1–23]. In that way, private property theory furnished propaganda for the enclosure and colonial movements that forcibly established that institution around the world."

7/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

Let's spend some time looking at Enclosure both historically and as a continuing reality. We'll start with a quick look at one small example of how people organized life on their own just before having it turned upside down by Enclosure:

@HeavenlyPossum on the Irish rundale system of common property:

https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110219111305684330

8/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

Looking further back we see that humans all over the globe have been actively managing our environment successfully and sustainably for many millennia, which reveals falsehoods embedded in the Lockean (white, European, patriarchal) view of humanity, history and land use. From the research article "People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years":

"The current biodiversity crisis is often depicted as a struggle to preserve untouched habitats. Here, we combine global maps of human populations and land use over the past 12,000 y with current biodiversity data to show that nearly three quarters of terrestrial nature has long been shaped by diverse histories of human habitation and use by Indigenous and traditional peoples. With rare exceptions, current biodiversity losses are caused not by human conversion or degradation of untouched ecosystems, but rather by the appropriation, colonization, and intensification of use in lands inhabited and used by prior societies. Global land use history confirms that empowering the environmental stewardship of Indigenous peoples and local communities will be critical to conserving biodiversity across the planet.

"Archaeological and paleoecological evidence shows that by 10,000 BCE, all human societies employed varying degrees of ecologically transformative land use practices, including burning, hunting, species propagation, domestication, cultivation, and others that have left long-term legacies across the terrestrial biosphere. Yet, a lingering paradigm among natural scientists, conservationists, and policymakers is that human transformation of terrestrial nature is mostly recent and inherently destructive. Here, we use the most up-to-date, spatially explicit global reconstruction of historical human populations and land use to show that this paradigm is likely wrong. Even 12,000 y ago, nearly three quarters of Earth’s land was inhabited and therefore shaped by human societies, including more than 95% of temperate and 90% of tropical woodlands. Lands now characterized as “natural,” “intact,” and “wild” generally exhibit long histories of use, as do protected areas and Indigenous lands, and current global patterns of vertebrate species richness and key biodiversity areas are more strongly associated with past patterns of land use than with present ones in regional landscapes now characterized as natural. The current biodiversity crisis can seldom be explained by the loss of uninhabited wildlands, resulting instead from the appropriation, colonization, and intensifying use of the biodiverse cultural landscapes long shaped and sustained by prior societies. Recognizing this deep cultural connection with biodiversity will therefore be essential to resolve the crisis."

Those in power have been telling us that we (people in general or "human nature") are the problem. The evidence tells us otherwise: the problem originated with a specific group of people who had the power to enforce their will over the entire globe eventually. We'll look more later at the disasterous results of colonialism.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023483118

9/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

With all the above context in mind let us examine the process of Enclosure.

Here is an introduction to "The Tragedy of the Commons" from @HeavenlyPossum:

https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/109449321659418326

10/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

Here is an insightful, extensive and detailed look at the history of Enclosure in Britain and the so-called "Tragedy of the Commons":

https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britain

11/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

@HeavenlyPossum on the enclosure of our roads and car dependency as capitalist rent:

https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110123111646315678

(for more horrifying details of car culture see this article which fleshes out the statistics very well though it falls short by only dealing with superficial causes and solutions:
https://devonzuegel.com/post/we-should-be-building-cities-for-people-not-cars )

12/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

@HeavenlyPossum on art as an enclosed commons:

https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110162427730407993

13/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

@HeavenlyPossum - An investigation into money, credit, and the social role of landlords:

https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110108848618951452

14/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

The result of all this has been to force us into a "market society".

@HeavenlyPossum on the imposition of markets and the demolition of society:

https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110182089285428195

15/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

Another quote from "The Prehistory of Private Property":

"No argument about the freedom to appropriate can support the market economy, because capitalism makes people no freer to appropriate property than the common property regime, public property regime, or any other system. A person born into the contemporary market economy is as unfree to appropriate land as a person born to a common property regime or a public property regime that allows no private landownership. The right to appropriate scarce resources, as economist define the term (i.e. anything with a monetary value), is inconsistent with a system of equal freedom from coercion. The propertyless today are not and cannot be equally free to appropriate.

"Lomasky’s “liberty to acquire” holdings actually means the “liberty” to purchase goods. That’s not a liberty at all. That’s a positive opportunity. The goods you are expected to buy are made out of resources you have forcibly been excluded from using yourself. The chance to take orders from one resource owner so that you can “earn” the right to buy goods from other resource owners might be useful, but it is not freedom from some form of coercion that exists in societies with a common property regime."

16/30

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

Here is @AdrianRiskin on the role of state violence in market society:

State Violence, The Diamond/Water Paradox, and an Invisible Axiom of Classical Economics

https://chez-risk.in/2023/01/29/state-violence-the-diamond-water-paradox-and-an-invisible-axiom-of-classical-economics/

17/30

markmccaughrean, to random
@markmccaughrean@mastodon.social avatar

Draw a one centimetre square on your finger & hold it towards the Sun 👆

Now consider that some 60 billion neutrinos hit it every second, created by nuclear fusion in the solar core 500 seconds ago 🙀

Even if it’s nighttime & your finger has to point down through Earth’s surface – they don’t care 🙃

But if it makes you feel better, there are only about 2 solar neutrinos in each cubic centimetre of you at any given instant 🤷‍♂️

Well, plus another 300 from the Big Bang 😬

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

@markmccaughrean

futurebird, to random
@futurebird@sauropods.win avatar

A lot of people don't know the difference between capitalism and ... having markets and shopping and little coops and companies in non-super-essential economic sectors that operate independently.

Markets existed before capitalism and will exist after.

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

@futurebird
@aredridel

I really think you'll be interested in this informative thread on how we got here (the imposition of markets and the demolition of society). Spoiler alert, it didn't just happen randomly:

https://kolektiva.social/@HeavenlyPossum/110182089285428195

breadandcircuses, to climate

I've just read a very interesting — but disturbing — essay about the direct connection of historical colonialism to deforestation, desertification, pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Ugh.

My first reaction is to be appalled and disgusted (once again) with the incredibly poor "stewardship" shown by European conquerors of indigenous peoples. Time and time again, these "civilized" invaders proved far less capable of effectively managing precious natural environments and resources than had the original inhabitants. Damn them!

And my second reaction is to be fascinated by the suggestion that "Anthropocene" may not in fact be a suitable name for the geological epoch we entered at some point in the past few hundred years. This is because the prefix "anthro" suggests that ALL humans are responsible for the changes wrought by global industrialization, when in truth it was, and is, only a mere sliver of the population, that good old 1%, who are behind the drive to dominate nature and exploit the environment at whatever cost, so long as they can profit from it and solidify their positions at the top.

Here's a short excerpt which amplifies this point...

While the scientific community has been debating over which year the Anthropocene Epoch began, several Indigenous and Black scholars have shot back against the term.

The problem, some scholars say, is that the term assumes the climate crisis is caused by universal human nature, rather than the actions of a minority of colonialists, capitalists, and patriarchs. And the implication that the Earth was stable until around 1950, when the ‘Anthropocene’ supposedly began, denies the history of people who have been exploited by those systems for centuries.

Indigenous scholars have further addressed how the term stands for colonialist ideologies that sever the deep ties and interconnections between humans, plants, animals, and the soil.

“Instead of treating the Earth like a precious entity that gives us life, Western colonial legacies operate within a paradigm that assumes they can extract its natural resources as much as they want, and the Earth will regenerate itself,” said Hadeel Assali, a lecturer and postdoctoral scholar.

I hope you'll read the full essay, and then let me know what you think about its message.

LINK -- https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/09/21/how-colonialism-spawned-and-continues-to-exacerbate-the-climate-crisis/

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

@KatLS @breadandcircuses

I think Capital is well-served by us thinking that greed is the problem. This is 101: blame everything on human nature, claim that people need authorities to control them and blame heinous atrocities on us forcing them to do bad things for our own good.

All this distracts from the reality that Capital is power and that capitalism was forced on us all by a tiny minority of people with power. It did not just "evolve" from our collective actions. It is not some neutral system that has been ruined by greedy individuals.

It is important for people to understand the real evils deeper at the heart of capitalism:







"It took 10,000 years of violent aggression to force almost everybody around the world into the position where they have to follow a boss’s orders to get access to resources essential for survival. It took only a few generations to convince most people that this situation was natural and inevitable. That false lesson needs to be unlearned."

Karl Widerquist and Grant S. McCall "The Prehistory of Private Property"
https://works.bepress.com/widerquist/117/download/

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

@KatLS @breadandcircuses

"Locke could hardly have been unaware that his theory provided a justification for an ongoing process disappropriating European commoners and indigenous peoples alike or that that process amounted to redistribution without compensation from poor to rich. This observation raises serious doubts that the principles contemporary propertarians have inherited from him reflect some deeper commitment to nonaggression or noninterference."
...

"Lockeanism eventually revolutionized the world’s conception of what property was by portraying full liberal ownership as if it were something natural that had always existed, even though it was only then being established by enclosure and colonialization. Lockean and propertarian stories might have been more important than their theories in that effort. The “original appropriator” in Locke’s story resembles European colonialists rather than prehistoric indigenous North Americans who first farmed the continent. Locke’s appropriator establishes the fee-simple rights that colonial governments (building a global cash economy) tend to establish rather than the complex, overlapping rights indigenous farmers in stateless societies tend to establish..."
...

"The intent of Blackstone, Locke, Grotius, and other early modern property theorists was not to describe what property actually was or even what kind of institutions most people wanted at the time. Instead, it was “a common strategy of claiming the ground of property so as to preempt serious consideration of alternatives like common property”. In that way, private property theory furnished propaganda for the enclosure and colonial movements that forcibly established that institution around the world."

"The Prehistory of Private Property" by Karl Widerquist and Grant S. McCall

https://works.bepress.com/widerquist/117/download/

aral, to random
@aral@mastodon.ar.al avatar

A timely reminder that “punishable by fine” means “legal for the rich.”

RD4Anarchy,
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

@aral

https://mstdn.social/@lowqualityfacts/110222050110573258

RD4Anarchy, to random
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

"It took 10,000 years of violent aggression to force almost everybody around the world into the position where they have to follow a boss’s orders to get access to resources essential for survival. It took only a few generations to convince most people that this situation was natural and inevitable. That false lesson needs to be unlearned."

Karl Widerquist and Grant S. McCall "The Prehistory of Private Property"

EDIT May 6, 2023:
I just realized that this quote comes from an early draft version of the book.

Here is the quote as it appears in the final published version:

"After hundreds of millennia in which all humans had direct access to the commons, it took only a few centuries for enclosure, colonialism, capitalism, and industrialization to cut off the vast majority of
people on Earth from direct access to the means of economic production and therefore to rob them of the power to say no. It took only a
few generations to convince most people that this situation was natural and inevitable. That false lesson needs to be unlearned."

"The power to say no" is an important concept that Widerquist has written extensively on.
See for example his doctoral thesis "Property and the Power to Say No: A Freedom-Based Argument For Basic Income"

https://widerquist.com/books-3/#11b

RD4Anarchy, to random
@RD4Anarchy@kolektiva.social avatar

I'm retired, a bit early due to covid-19 and the desire to protect myself and especially my older partner. We are both still doing what we can to avoid catching this insidious virus even once.

Most of my life I've been apolitical, but while coming from various perspectives over the years I've always been intuitively anti-capitalist and highly critical of the US. I tended generally toward progressive, unconventional, and counter-culture in most contexts but lacked any solid political consciousness or analysis. I was a worker all my life, most of it in the natural food industry (which I felt relatively good about), mostly at retail level. I never wanted to be anyone's boss so I was never a manager and never climbed the corporate ladder. In the later years I was fortunate to have a position that was not involved with sales but rather with protecting and informing customers (internal auditing for weights & measures compliance) which I also felt relatively good about but it certainly wasn't lucrative, lol.

I only became seriously concerned with politics during Bernie Sanders' first presidential campaign when I got a fleeting glimpse of supposed possibility for real change. I began to explore socialist thought and thought of myself as a demsoc. I was focused on electoral reform at the time, thinking that was the problem. I shared info with friends, family and co-workers about various projects to reform electoral politics and I started an account on Twitter (@RD4Democracy, now deleted) in 2017 to have someplace to direct them to for more info and updates.

Fortunately there I found some very helpful voices along with all the noise, but I didn't immediately understand how to differentiate between it all so I was still following some garbage accounts for a while. Nevertheless my political thought evolved rapidly and I found myself following more and more anarchists and starting to understand anarchist thought. I realized I needed to better understand private property and learned about that. I read Graeber's "Debt" and got an understanding of money. I did some research to better understand what capital is and developed an idea of it as a sort of "god" or artificial intelligence with capitalism as its religion.

One of the helpful voices I want to specifically appreciate and recommend is @HeavenlyPossum. With the help of HP and others I was able to successfully navigate the crossroads that many self-described socialists never seem to reach at all and where too many others take the wrong fork into the tankie world.

The pandemic and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine were extremely clarifying events that helped me finally see the nature of that fork in the road, as well as shining an intense light on all the shit accounts I was following and providing an opportunity for others I followed to show or decide their true colors. It has been very sad sometimes while very illuminating.

And now here we are. I felt it important to participate in a non-corporate, decentralized and open source social project like this and the timing seemed significant. Let's see what we can do.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • anitta
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • everett
  • InstantRegret
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • love
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • tacticalgear
  • GTA5RPClips
  • DreamBathrooms
  • megavids
  • modclub
  • mdbf
  • tester
  • Durango
  • ethstaker
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • ngwrru68w68
  • provamag3
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines
    •