Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Consanguinity as a major predictor of levels of democracy: A study of 70 nations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Interesting subject although less and less relevant as the world becomes more and more mixed ethnically (one in 5 people in Ireland were born outside the country). I suspect that circumstance has a far bigger role to play in how deep democracy runs than anything else; if you told someone in Germany in 1920 what would be happening 15-20 years later you would have been met with incredulity.

    Wolfhnd, you said "For example Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs and Steel" has been thoroughly "debunked" but remains insightful." Can you give more information on that?
    "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
    validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
    "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
      Interesting subject although less and less relevant as the world becomes more and more mixed ethnically (one in 5 people in Ireland were born outside the country). I suspect that circumstance has a far bigger role to play in how deep democracy runs than anything else; if you told someone in Germany in 1920 what would be happening 15-20 years later you would have been met with incredulity.

      Wolfhnd, you said "For example Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs and Steel" has been thoroughly "debunked" but remains insightful." Can you give more information on that?
      The following is the academic response which the media ignored.

      https://www.livinganthropologically....jared-diamond/

      The obvious limitations that Diamond had when writing the book was that it was in a field he had no substantial training in, in writing a book for general circulation many nuances have to be dropped, for a book directed at a "liberal" audience no hint of biological determinism could be included, environmental determinism has long been known to have influenced cultural evolution but he needed to popularize it, he had committed to not offending marginalized groups before researching, some of the science was bound to be obsolete before publication because polygenic studies are an emerging field, etc., his biggest handicap was as the British said in their racist days "he has gone native".

      Why the West Rules for Now by Ian Morris is overall a better read. It just doesn't have the same emotional impact. Morris unlike Diamond tells us up front that you can't reduce cultural evolution to a few simple rules. Unfortunately people like simple rules. It's this bit of dishonesty that makes Gun Germs and Steel feel like propaganda to the serious student.

      I liked the book BTW
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
        . . . . Morris unlike Diamond tells us up front that you can't reduce cultural evolution to a few simple rules. Unfortunately people like simple rules. It's this bit of dishonesty that makes Gun Germs and Steel feel like propaganda to the serious student.

        I liked the book BTW
        I'd add that Diamond ignored the economic consequences of cultural and/or environmentally-inspired habits. For example, Diamond maintained that generations of African farmers eschewed tilling bottom land because those fields were closer to bodies of water that bred mosquitoes, which in turn spread malaria, which has probably been Africa's greatest killer for generations. The downside of not cultivating bottom land, however, is that irrigation is necessarily reduced, and thus so are yields, which translate into stagnant population growth. A human society can not evolve beyond its current state -- be it hunter-gatherer, agricultural/pastoral, feudal, mercantile, industrial, or post-industrial, without economic and demographic growth. So in this example, if the African farmers wanted to develop techniques/strategies/technologies to overcome malaria-bearing mosquitoes that breed in bottom lands, they most likely would need to develop excess agricultural capacity, which would in turn would lead to a "social surplus," which would encourage the advent of specialized technical fields of vocation, and then the malaria issue would be addressed. By eschewing greater capacity, however, the farmers were inadvertently consigning themselves to dealing with malaria by trying to run away from it. It was logical consequences of that nature that Diamond failed to address.

        His central thesis, however, is correct: that "primitive peoples" are not without intellectual and problem solving abilities, as proven by their mastery of certain skills and strategies that allow them to survive and form societies in their otherwise demanding environments.
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

          I'd add that Diamond ignored the economic consequences of cultural and/or environmentally-inspired habits. For example, Diamond maintained that generations of African farmers eschewed tilling bottom land because those fields were closer to bodies of water that bred mosquitoes, which in turn spread malaria, which has probably been Africa's greatest killer for generations. The downside of not cultivating bottom land, however, is that irrigation is necessarily reduced, and thus so are yields, which translate into stagnant population growth. A human society can not evolve beyond its current state -- be it hunter-gatherer, agricultural/pastoral, feudal, mercantile, industrial, or post-industrial, without economic and demographic growth. So in this example, if the African farmers wanted to develop techniques/strategies/technologies to overcome malaria-bearing mosquitoes that breed in bottom lands, they most likely would need to develop excess agricultural capacity, which would in turn would lead to a "social surplus," which would encourage the advent of specialized technical fields of vocation, and then the malaria issue would be addressed. By eschewing greater capacity, however, the farmers were inadvertently consigning themselves to dealing with malaria by trying to run away from it. It was logical consequences of that nature that Diamond failed to address.

          His central thesis, however, is correct: that "primitive peoples" are not without intellectual and problem solving abilities, as proven by their mastery of certain skills and strategies that allow them to survive and form societies in their otherwise demanding envireonments.
          Humans alter environments leading to changes in selection pressures. Evolution can be rapid or slow which ironically is what the Marxist Steven Gould argued :-) For an example of how culture causes rapid biological changes think cousin marriage in European monarchies. It is a good example of relaxed negative selection. If you only think of evolution in terms of speciation you miss much of it's utility. Biology and evolution cannot be separated anymore than culture and biology. It is what they may call an inconvenient truth.

          I'm not terribly interested in ethnicity. I'm more interested in the social problems Charles Murray talks about in the book Coming Apart: The State of White America. Unfortunately Murray is unable to lend the kind of scientific credibility to his theories that Woodley can to his. Woodley choose not to back away from ethnic differences. Ethnic differences that are not as simple as skin color.

          This is probably the wrong forum to have this discussion in. I do however feel historians need to understand that polygenic studies are a tool for exploring some aspects of history. It is something new and nobody knows exactly how to deal with it.

          I know you are skeptical of IQ but so is Woodley. The science we are discussing is very complex. Just keep an open mind.


          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #35
            ^ The point I was trying to make is that "higher" civilization is impossible without social surplus, ie excess of the barest minimum of production needed to sustain the lives of current members of a given community. By choosing to not cultivate bottom lands, those Africans were forgoing the chance to develop a "higher" civilization. They knew that mosquitoes caused illness -- which was a damned sight more intelligent than the Europeans, who believed that malaria was caused by "bad air" (from Italian: "mal," meaning bad -- and "aria," meaning air.) Nevertheless, the Africans addressed the issue not by trying to exploit the bottom lands' greater fertility while negating the disease, but by simply avoiding the bottom lands altogether -- thus depriving themselves of a social surplus. Maybe thier's was a lose-lose situation, in that the gains made by the greater fertility would have been offset by the losses from disease, but in the end, by not producing a surplus, they could not develop the kind of society which could address malaria more constructively.

            Is that a racial thing? An ethnic thing? Was that the intelligent thing to do under the circumstances? Don't kid yourself: going after those bottom lands would have incurred a price, just like avoiding the issue incurred a price. That question is, which price was higher?
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
              ^ The point I was trying to make is that "higher" civilization is impossible without social surplus, ie excess of the barest minimum of production needed to sustain the lives of current members of a given community. By choosing to not cultivate bottom lands, those Africans were forgoing the chance to develop a "higher" civilization. They knew that mosquitoes caused illness -- which was a damned sight more intelligent than the Europeans, who believed that malaria was caused by "bad air" (from Italian: "mal," meaning bad -- and "aria," meaning air.) Nevertheless, the Africans addressed the issue not by trying to exploit the bottom lands' greater fertility while negating the disease, but by simply avoiding the bottom lands altogether -- thus depriving themselves of a social surplus. Maybe thier's was a lose-lose situation, in that the gains made by the greater fertility would have been offset by the losses from disease, but in the end, by not producing a surplus, they could not develop the kind of society which could address malaria more constructively.

              Is that a racial thing? An ethnic thing? Was that the intelligent thing to do under the circumstances? Don't kid yourself: going after those bottom lands would have incurred a price, just like avoiding the issue incurred a price. That question is, which price was higher?
              I understand what you are saying but remember Europeans were also afraid of the "miasma" emanating from swamps. By our standards we are talking about two primitive peoples. As you said primitive does not equal stupid. Primitive Europeans may have simply been culturally detached from "nature" making them less likely to observe the mosquito connection.

              We are talking about stable vs unstable environments. Different adaptive strategies may be required. I suspect however you should look at Sumeria not Europe to understand the point. This isn't about race in the way people seem to envision it. In evolution there is no superior or inferior only fitness. Along with agriculture comes a change in what characteristic account for fitness. The Sumerians exploited a harsh but stable environment those characteristics mean that survival is tied to more advanced culture in a way in which it wasn't optional. You simply cannot survive as an agriculuralist without more advanced social organization in that region. Same is true of Egypt and Northern China. In a way the environment forces a more abstract approach to existence and that gets compounded over time. Europeans were probably less abstract thinking hunter gathers at the time. As I said changes in populations take place more rapidly than the simplified version of evolution taught to school childern.

              As you said there is a price to be paid for a more abstract culture. The most significant one being extreme social stratification due to increased need for hierarchies of competence. There are also dysgenic effects as selection pressures are reduced. In fact intelligence starts to become associated with various mental and physical defects in the upper classes first because of immunity to selection.

              The problem we face is analogous to the fitness difference between being 5.5 and 6 ft tall. Between an IQ of 90 and 120. Being half a foot taller has little or no fitness value but 30 points of IQ is an insurmountable difference. Abstract culture magnifies small differences in ability that would go unnoticed in a hunter gather society. Again it has nothing to do with the common conception of race or intelligence. If culture wasn't so good at altering the environment these tiny genetic changes that lead to differences in abstract reasoning would go unnoticed.
              The other thing you need to consider is that we are a self domesticated species. I will let you work that out for yourself.

              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                I'm actually not very interested in race outside of how it is related to class for political purposes.

                Sorry dude but from reading what you've posted lately I find I find that very hard to believe.

                I think you're interested in race as a determinant on a great many levels not just it's relation to class - and that's fine, just very touchy and tricky to present in err...ummm…. polite or.... err...ummm….'mixed' social gatherings.
                Am I right? (I nearly always am)
                So hence your presentation of these issues (as I've said before rather obliquely) in the relatively 'safe' space of the internet.

                I helped run a few tutes that touched sometimes in this whole issue (that of race being the trickiest thing to openly discuss) back in the late '70's and is was,.... well.....awkward to start with but as long as people kept their emotions in check, a worthwhile exercise in the end.

                As I said, you continue to interest me.

                Regards
                lodestar

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by lodestar View Post


                  Sorry dude but from reading what you've posted lately I find I find that very hard to believe.

                  I think you're interested in race as a determinant on a great many levels not just it's relation to class - and that's fine, just very touchy and tricky to present in err...ummm…. polite or.... err...ummm….'mixed' social gatherings.
                  Am I right? (I nearly always am)
                  So hence your presentation of these issues (as I've said before rather obliquely) in the relatively 'safe' space of the internet.

                  I helped run a few tutes that touched sometimes in this whole issue (that of race being the trickiest thing to openly discuss) back in the late '70's and is was,.... well.....awkward to start with but as long as people kept their emotions in check, a worthwhile exercise in the end.

                  As I said, you continue to interest me.

                  Regards
                  lodestar
                  I can see why people make the mistake of assuming that what someone is talking about is what they are interested in. The problem with that approach is when talking about something as complex as population genetics you have to lay the groundwork first. It has been my observation that you have to deal with race first because most people have been indoctrinated by a dishonest media and academia to assume any hint of biological determinism marks a speaker as racist. There is no doubt that a distorted form of social constructionism dominates popular culture at the moment. Race as I have tried to point out is less important than class but identity politics has made people poorly equipped to recognize this. Nobody escapes brainwashing and the desire to be part of the dominant culture and becomes totally objective entirely.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                    I can see why people make the mistake of assuming that what someone is talking about is what they are interested in. The problem with that approach is when talking about something as complex as population genetics you have to lay the groundwork first. It has been my observation that you have to deal with race first because most people have been indoctrinated by a dishonest media and academia to assume any hint of biological determinism marks a speaker as racist. There is no doubt that a distorted form of social constructionism dominates popular culture at the moment. Race as I have tried to point out is less important than class but identity politics has made people poorly equipped to recognize this. Nobody escapes brainwashing and the desire to be part of the dominant culture and becomes totally objective entirely.


                    Creative innovation and lateral nonconformity at its most insidious and dangerous. Clearly Trotskyite clearly deviationist. Boy are you gonna be in trouble!

                    You make some points that deserve serious consideration and I agree that fear of being labelled a racist is a real handicap in truly open discussion, especially when analyzing scientific and/or sociological data.

                    So...….don't take what I'm gonna say next personally …. but can you please break up your paragraphs a bit more and make what you're sayin a bit easier to digest?

                    Can I gingerly suggest something like this for example with your above post:

                    I can see why people make the mistake of assuming that what someone is talking about is what they are interested in. The problem with that approach is when talking about something as complex as population genetics you have to lay the groundwork first.

                    It has been my observation that you have to deal with race first because most people have been indoctrinated by a dishonest media and academia to assume any hint of biological determinism marks a speaker as racist.
                    There is no doubt that a distorted form of social constructionism dominates popular culture at the moment.

                    Race as I have tried to point out is less important than class but identity politics has made people poorly equipped to recognize this.

                    Nobody escapes brainwashing and the desire to be part of the dominant culture and becomes totally objective entirely.


                    Just makes it a bit easier to take on board what your postulating.
                    Sorry, once an advisor (on a small scale) on essay writing always an ...….

                    Errr…… if you're still talking to me perhaps you can provide some examples (maybe from personal experience) of 'dishonest' academia and how it might straitjacket or even shut-down aspects of the issues you are examining?

                    I ask because I am going to re-read 'The Closing of the American Mind' by Allan Bloom (1987) as soon as I get free decade.

                    Well now we have ground rules for and a fundamental basis for, a properly delineated discussion.
                    Let us proceed with a song in our hearts and a spring in our steps!


                    Keep posting, you're a refreshing change. Kinda like JFK or Trump!

                    Regards
                    lodestar






                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by lodestar View Post



                      Creative innovation and lateral nonconformity at its most insidious and dangerous. Clearly Trotskyite clearly deviationist. Boy are you gonna be in trouble!

                      You make some points that deserve serious consideration and I agree that fear of being labelled a racist is a real handicap in truly open discussion, especially when analyzing scientific and/or sociological data.

                      So...….don't take what I'm gonna say next personally …. but can you please break up your paragraphs a bit more and make what you're sayin a bit easier to digest?

                      Can I gingerly suggest something like this for example with your above post:

                      I can see why people make the mistake of assuming that what someone is talking about is what they are interested in. The problem with that approach is when talking about something as complex as population genetics you have to lay the groundwork first.

                      It has been my observation that you have to deal with race first because most people have been indoctrinated by a dishonest media and academia to assume any hint of biological determinism marks a speaker as racist.
                      There is no doubt that a distorted form of social constructionism dominates popular culture at the moment.

                      Race as I have tried to point out is less important than class but identity politics has made people poorly equipped to recognize this.

                      Nobody escapes brainwashing and the desire to be part of the dominant culture and becomes totally objective entirely.


                      Just makes it a bit easier to take on board what your postulating.
                      Sorry, once an advisor (on a small scale) on essay writing always an ...….

                      Errr…… if you're still talking to me perhaps you can provide some examples (maybe from personal experience) of 'dishonest' academia and how it might straitjacket or even shut-down aspects of the issues you are examining?

                      I ask because I am going to re-read 'The Closing of the American Mind' by Allan Bloom (1987) as soon as I get free decade.

                      Well now we have ground rules for and a fundamental basis for, a properly delineated discussion.
                      Let us proceed with a song in our hearts and a spring in our steps!


                      Keep posting, you're a refreshing change. Kinda like JFK or Trump!

                      Regards
                      lodestar





                      like I said if you have serious questions address them to the authors. I'm not an expert.

                      That said I am unhappy you elected to call me a liar. You fail to understand my philosophy in which there are only trivial absolute truths. It isn't so much shades of grey as humility. I'm not so insecure as to be easily offended but what would be the point of talking to a liar.
                      We hunt the hunters

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I'd be wary of using IQ as a measure of anything, since it itself is a very abstract concept (what exactly does it measure?). Furthermore, it only tends measure differences within a population, not within different populations. It is impossible to measure differences between populations that live in different societies. Often these arguments put the horse before the cart, ie. claiming that we have great educational systems because of our high IQ, and not that we have high IQ because of our great educational systems.

                        The main problem when extrapolating this to the general society and advancement is that merit doesn't actually take you anywhere. Even if you are the best farmer in the world, capable of increasing all crop yields tenfold, it doesn't mean **** if all you own is a small garden plot (societal organisation). Evolution itself seems to only take leaps forward when niches open up. If dinosaurs didn't die in the asteroid blasts, then humans would never have evolved, simply because there was no room to evolve. Likewise, America didn't become a superpower because of genetical superiority of WASP immigrants. It became a superpower because there was a whole continent to exploit, with the existing populations dying from diseases. In Europe, black death seems to have been one of the deciding factor in propelling us forward.

                        This is to say, even an idiot can thrive when given opportunities to do so. And when there are no opportunities it doesn't matter if you're an idiot or a genius.
                        Wisdom is personal

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Karri View Post
                          I'd be wary of using IQ as a measure of anything, since it itself is a very abstract concept (what exactly does it measure?). Furthermore, it only tends measure differences within a population, not within different populations. It is impossible to measure differences between populations that live in different societies. Often these arguments put the horse before the cart, ie. claiming that we have great educational systems because of our high IQ, and not that we have high IQ because of our great educational systems.

                          The main problem when extrapolating this to the general society and advancement is that merit doesn't actually take you anywhere. Even if you are the best farmer in the world, capable of increasing all crop yields tenfold, it doesn't mean **** if all you own is a small garden plot (societal organisation). Evolution itself seems to only take leaps forward when niches open up. If dinosaurs didn't die in the asteroid blasts, then humans would never have evolved, simply because there was no room to evolve. Likewise, America didn't become a superpower because of genetical superiority of WASP immigrants. It became a superpower because there was a whole continent to exploit, with the existing populations dying from diseases. In Europe, black death seems to have been one of the deciding factor in propelling us forward.

                          This is to say, even an idiot can thrive when given opportunities to do so. And when there are no opportunities it doesn't matter if you're an idiot or a genius.
                          Woodley certainly understands that IQ doesn't measure intelligence. IQ measured specialized abilities and does so reasonable well. To account for Intelligence researchers refer to what they call general intelligence.

                          To get at the heart of this discussion we would have to delve into philosophy of science. I'm afraid all that would do is end in an argument over correlation not equaling causation. In applied science we are mostly dealing with probabilities and yes liars do use statistics. Because of correlations with life history outcomes it is highly probable that IQ measures some aspect of intelligence. Anytime you are dealing with a complex chaotic system you are going to end up relying on correlations that are statistically significant to make predictions.

                          If you are going to reject IQ you just as well reject global warming because both acquire validity based on correlations. Both investigate complex chaotic systems in which extraneous factors cannot be controlled. Science is reductionist and deterministic. You can make philosophical arguments against both but unless you have a better way to understand "reality" what is the point.

                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                            No doubt that explains why Tutankhmun looked like such a mess.

                            Personally, I don't think anyone looks all that good in a diaper.
                            "I am Groot"
                            - Groot

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I will offer an additional observation that may help.

                              Many intelligence researchers get labeled racist or pseudo scientists. Sometimes they may be racist. You have to ask yourself if it really matters. I knew a petroleum geologist who was a creationist that was good at his job. It is the results that matter.

                              Science for the most part is morally neutral. All we care about is if the results of any given experiment or theory are repeatable. In this case we have a theory that is confirmed by observations. That does not mean the theory is right but it does mean you can't reject it until you have observations inconsistent with the theory. As we all know ad hominems are not an argument.

                              You will hear from very intelligent people that IQ doesn't measure intelligence. It's a strawman argument because in intelligence research the colloquial definition of intelligence does not coincide with the professional definition. IQ approximates abstract reasoning ability. It doesn't matter what intelligence actually is as long as the test results correlate with solving abstract problems. The "good" intelligence researchers are well aware of the fact that learning how to take tests skews the results but evidence is that this only slightly alters the results. Popular opinion be dammed.

                              So why is abstract problem solving important? To answer that question you have to first understand that we live in an abstract environment. Mathematics for example is totally abstract. Nothing in nature can be decomposed into discrete irreducible components. Even in physics where reality is reduced to wave functions it cannot be shown that anything exists independent of external influences. Reality as it turns out is relative. Despite how trite this observation is who would deny the utility of mathematics. Tools as it turns out are not limited to the "real" world they don't have to physical exist.

                              Intelligence is another abstraction whether it exist or not as a component of physical reality the concept has utility. Like mathematics it is a thinking tool. It is a proxy for but not equivalent to the underlying reality.

                              No amount of philosophical sophistication is going to overturn the common sense observation that intelligence is essential to social organization nor demonstrate that it is not evenly distributed. You can make an argument that differences in intelligence would not matter greatly at lower levels of organization but what would be the point. No sane person would argue that intelligence doesn't correlate with but is insufficient for optimal organization within an abstract environment.
                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                                If you are going to reject IQ you just as well reject global warming because both acquire validity based on correlations. Both investigate complex chaotic systems in which extraneous factors cannot be controlled. Science is reductionist and deterministic. You can make philosophical arguments against both but unless you have a better way to understand "reality" what is the point.
                                False. Global warming (climate change is a more intelligent term) can be measured because the factors included are not abstract. They might be complex, the links might not be clear, but certainly everything included can be measured. Intelligence cannot be measured because it is an abstract term to begin with.

                                Of course, I am not rejecting IQ itself, just the implied correlation/causation/association/definition to intelligence. Saying that IQ does not relate directly to intelligence, does not mean that IQ does not test, for example, your mathematical or spatial abilities (or that these are not usually highly developed with intelligent individuals). Otherwise you might just as well argue that AI is actually intelligent, which it certainly isn't (there is nothing intelligent about artificial intelligence). Or that my smart phone is smarter than me since it can process complex multiplications faster than I can.

                                Many of the people who measure IQ differences between races get labeled racist because they are racist. One of the "heroes" of this field is actually Finnish. The problem with his "national IQ calculations" was that there actually was no data available for over half of the nations, so they just included averages from surrounding countries. Usually, the preferred methods in these arguments is to start from the conclusion and disregard anything that doesn't fit the hypothesis...also, the fact that a lot of the people who invented this field were also prominent supporters of eugenics is something of a factor to consider.

                                Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                                No amount of philosophical sophistication is going to overturn the common sense observation that intelligence is essential to social organization
                                I reject this notion absolutely. Social organizations are built on entirely different factors than intelligence. Just look at your current self-proclaimed genius of a president...societal organisation seems to rather be a product of self-interest of individuals and groups.

                                I'd love to hear your examples of social organisations that rely on intelligence, rather than where individuals use intelligence to exploit the system to further their own interest (and usually intelligence is the least important of factors when exploiting the system).
                                Last edited by Karri; 19 Nov 19, 13:05.
                                Wisdom is personal

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • casanova
                                  Robi P.
                                  by casanova
                                  The Austrian soldier Toni P. of the Radetzky barack in Horn Nether Austria was forced by his commander to make an march with his comrades in 3th August...
                                  Today, 02:27
                                • casanova
                                  Beirut
                                  by casanova
                                  Gigantic explosion in the city of Beirut. 70 people were killed and 2750 men were heavy hurted. The explosion was like atomic bomb. The cause of that...
                                  Today, 00:47
                                • casanova
                                  Nuclear battleheads.
                                  by casanova
                                  A secret UNO report declares, that North Korea owns already nuclear battleheads for tactical rockets....
                                  Yesterday, 23:58
                                Working...
                                X