Archive for the Darwinism Category

Atheists make for mad scientists

Posted in agnostics, atheism, atheists, Darwinism, False religion, God, religion, science, Truth, Uncategorized, worldview with tags , , on February 25, 2012 by devilbloggger

Mad Scientists.

Do you know how to make a scientist mad?  Try this some time.  Go up to a scientist and say that you believe the natural evidence of creation supports a scientific inference of a creator.  That is, explain that the abundant evidence of design in the universe and the world around you naturally leads you to believe there might be an intelligent designer.  Unless you happen to find one who practices the scientific method objectively, you will succeed in provoking the wrath of certainty from a dogmatic person who will lecture you on the difference between “science” and “religion”.

You will, in fact, create a mad scientist.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh, my servants, let me tell you one of my greatest kingdom secrets.  I’ve succeeded in making “science” the new world religion by carefully cultivating the discipline of science and the persona of scientists as being “objective” arbiters of truth.  Bias free, contemplating, rational minds inside humble bodies supporting white lab coats, dutifully doling out truth to the masses.

And my real triumph?  I’ve changed the definition of “truth” so that in effect, the only truth permitted by “science” and the new scientists must be, by definition, atheistic.

You don’t believe me?  Then you have never tried to make a mad scientist.

Try it.  You will see.  And then do your own research into what “science” is today, and you will find that the new paradigm is that “science” must posit only “natural” explanations for natural phenomena.

And God is not natural.

So science today is forced by the elite establishments of academia to be unnaturally atheistic regardless of the evidence.


Did you know, my friends, that over 85% of the members of the United State’s National Academy of Sciences are atheists?  And the atheists wonder openly how the other 15% got in.

Now you know why.

Please keep this information confidential; if this kingdom knowledge ever gets out my agenda could be set back to the days when God-believing scientists like Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein made ground-breaking scientific gains while openly practicing a belief in God.

Let me illustrate my great success on earth with a news article that caught my eye today.  The Telegraph reports, in an article by John Bingham entitled, “Richard Dawkins: I can’t be sure God does not exist,” on a dialog at Oxford University during which Dawkins admitted to Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams,  “that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.”


Richard Dawkins, one of my premeire beelze-buds, is as this article states, “regarded as the most famous atheist in the world.”

And now he’s “agnostic”?

Now, my friends, you know if you read this blog that I, like God, believe atheists to be fools.

There are no atheists in Hell.

But agnostics!  That’s a different story.  There are also no agnostics in Hell, but true agnostics on earth often never get here.

But after reading the article, I realize Richard Dawkins is as atheistic as he always was, which is to say, that like all those who profess to be atheists, he is merely an arrogant coward who refuse to face the evident truth of nature.  (I just hope Dawkins never realizes that he can be sure God does exist.)

But atheists do help further my kingdom on earth, so I find them useful fools (and, usually quite stupid on top of that!).

Let me explain, using Dawkins as Fool in Chief.

In attempting to sound intelligent, Dawkins, according to The Telegraph article, stated to the Archbishop:

“What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”

Now, my servants, read that quote more carefully (I know many of you skip over quotes).  Think about what Servant Fool Dawkins said, and learn.

The idea that life started from nothing . . . why clutter it up with God?

That, my friends, is not a scientific observation; it is a statement of faith.

The idea that anything can come from nothing is antithetical to all of science.  A true scientist would never make such a statement.  Whether “life” (as Dawkins says), or any element of matter in the universe (as Dawkins believes), science is quite clear that nothing comes from nothing.

If ever there was truly “nothing” there would still be nothing today.

That’s science.

On the contrary, Dawkin’s statement is a statement of faith.  He is expressing the necessary faith of every atheist (although most are, frankly, not intelligent enough to grasp it): In the beginning there was nothing, and then “poof” out of nothing, came something.

It is scientific nonsense, but it makes perfect sense to atheists like Dawkins.

Here’s another secret, my friends: everyone believes something unbelievable.

Either something (the universe) just appeared like magic out of nothing (an unscientific thought, but held by Dawkins), or something was created by God.

Which statement is more scientifically valid?

Yes, you are right: God.

Because science says everything that came to be must have been caused.

Aristotle, a true scientist, decided there must be an Uncaused Cause.  And he was right.

Every thinking human not hindered by a philosophical bias comes to the same conclusion as Aristotle; the evidence demands it.

But not all humans are like Aristotle.  In fact, in today’s agenda-driven, philosophically constrained philosophical environment, humans who wish to be prominent, published, scientists must first express allegiance to practical atheism before they practice science.

Human => atheist => scientist is the progression I’ve arranged on earth.  Humans like Dawkins are, as shown by his statement above, atheists second, and scientists third.  Very simply, their “science” (something can come from nothing) is dictated not by the evidence, but by their atheism.

Human => scientist => atheist is impossible.  Humans who are scientists first, observing the evidence of creation and making natural, rational inferences, can never be atheists.

Which goes to show my great ability on earth, don’t you think?

And if you try to point out the atheist’s philosophical bias they get mad.  They lecture you on your ignorance of “science” and sue you for violating separation of Christianity and state, and deny you tenure, and call you names, and start blogs about you, and sit in their circle of atheist jerks and make each other feel good.

It’s a beautiful thing, really.

Now send Mr. Dawkins a thank you note for me, will you?

He’s a doll.

Can’t wait to meet him.

And those like him.

Mad scientists all, when they come rolling in my gates.

Something from nothing.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Madness, pure madness.


Satan Answers Mr. Keller’s Tough Questions.

Posted in atheism, atheists, Bible, Darwin, Darwinism, evangelisim, evolution, False religion, God, heresy, homosexuality, liberals, political correctness, prayer, public schools, secular humanism, secularism, separation of church and state, Truth, worldview with tags , , , on August 25, 2011 by devilbloggger

Oh yeah.

My my my.  Sometimes one of mine outdoes himself in his blind hatred of all things God (true God, that is).  Sometimes this servant of mine has a loud voice that gets heard by many, convinces a few, and pleases one. My my my.

When I saw Bill Keller’s article  in today’s New York Times entitled, “Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith,” I must admit I was worried.  I thought it might be an exposé focusing on the atheistic faith of some politicians, the anti-Christian faith of others, or the general degradation of all things moral and upright by almost every politician.

But I suppose I should have known better.  After all, this showed up in my paper of record.  And it didn’t disappoint.

Yes, Mr. Keller dumped not on “faith” in general, a necessary element of anyone’s political worldview, but only on sincere God faith of the type expressed by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

I’m with Mr. Keller on this one, my friends.  There is nothing worse for my kingdom than a politician who has a sincere belief in God, and nothing better for my kingdom than a politician who has a professed, but clearly non-existent faith in God.

You will notice Mr. Keller has no problem with Mr. Obama’s faith.

Neither do I.

But consider the faith of Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, or horror of horrors Rick Perry, and Mr. Keller begins asking the baited question, “Does it matter?”


For what?  For an ordered society where people can live freely in relative peace like they used to do when God was not banished from public discourse?

Yes, I suppose it does matter.

And to press his point, Mr. Keller sent a questionairre to suspect candidates to find out where they stand on questions he believes important.  The entire questionnaire can be found on The 6th Floor blog.  Just for fun, I have given my answers to his questions below.


1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?

My answer:  Yes, of course.  Everyone has faith in something or someone, and the public has a right to know what or who is the object of one’s ultimate faith.  Obviously, it is that “something” or “someone” which/who will ultimately drive a politician’s policy choices.  I just hope that atheists, and practical atheists like most Democrats in the US don’t get questioned on this point.

2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?

My answer: Yes, it is fair.  But the emphasis should always remain on “pastors” and not “thinkers” like Karl Marx,  Bill Ayers and others who espouse destructive ideas that I’ve miraculously made standard thought among the political elite, as well as the faculty of most college campuses.

3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in  practice?

My answer:  No. America used to be a Christian nation.  Of course it is not now.  In practice a Christian nation would not kill millions of babies for convenience, celebrate homosexuality as normal, or trash Biblical sexual morality (all three are intimately related).  A Christian nation would not ban Christmas displays, censor Christmas carols in public schools, fire teachers for reading Bibles at work, object to crosses in public places (whether inadvertent or purposeful), freak out over after-school bible studies, go spastic over graduation prayers, kow tow to imprisoned terrorists on religious grounds, sue every person for every Christian utterance made in public, or … well, you get the idea.

4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?

My answer: I encounter conflicts all the time.  The Constitution was written based on an implicit faith in the God of the Bible–an obvious conflict for my purposes.  Fortunately, I resolve it by convincing many people that the Constitution is “living” and subject to change based on prevailing morals by consensus.  Does it seem like the time is right to make abortion a Constitutional right?  Then, by God moi, I make sure someone finds that right buried in that dadgum thing somewhere. 

5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?

My answer: Moi?  Ha ha ha ha ha.  Of course not. 

6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

My answer: No.  But Mormons can be just as damaging to my kingdom.  I hate Mormons almost as much as I hate Christians.

7. What do you think of  the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

My answer:  Frankly, that idea scares the . . . well, the . . . the heck out of me.  Fortunately, it will never happen, but I can use the notion to prey upon fears, just as I’ve done with Mr. Keller.  Question: Would Mr. Keller care if “Dominionism” was the idea that atheists, and only atheists, should hold dominion over “secular” institutions of the earth.  Why not?

8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

My answer:  I LOVE the theory of evolution.  This theory has done more to advance my kingdom than any other in the history of the world.  Of course it should be taught in public schools, but not as Darwin presented it, a tentative scientific theory, but as dogmatic fact immune from criticism.  Darwin, a true scientist, included many reasonable scientific objections to his theory of descent with modification in his book Origin of Species.  I would not want students to know these objections, all of which continue as refutations to Darwin’s theory today.  One of my greatest lies on earth is that Darwinism is ironclad science and anyone who questions it is naïve at best, and evil at worst.  (Consider: Darwin’s own book, half of which contains scientific criticism of his theory, could not be taught in public schools today!  The criticisms are just as valid today, but they are not allowed to be taught. Darwin would likely abandon his theory based on them.)

9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

My answer:  Are you serious?  Of course not.  Unless, of course, the prayers are to an ungodly toy deity.

There you have it, my servants. 

I wonder how my answers would stack up against the politicians Mr. Keller opposes?

I wonder how my answers would stack up against the politicians Mr. Keller endorses?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Science: atheism is a post-disposition of the mind.

Posted in atheism, creation, Darwin, Darwinism, science, theology, Truth, Uncategorized, worldview with tags , , on July 19, 2011 by devilbloggger

Quote of the Day: [I]t is an amazing thing to witness staunch atheists become cringing creationists one millisecond after they permanently leave the life of free will and enter my eternal kingdom of irredeemable theists.   —Evolution debate un-naturally selected to die in Louisiana


What is the human brain, my friends?  Is it, as modern science would dictate,  merely a conglomeration of atoms that happened for no good reason to form in the Big Bang’s chain reaction of motion?  Like earth, wind, and fire, is the brain nothing more than the aftermath of a purposeless, chance event? 

 Darwinism holds this view, and this is precisely what all little chillens in public schools are taught.

And I like it.

But why, my servants, do humans, even after learning that they are accidents of nature, believe in God?  Why, after generations of worldwide indoctrination into Darwinian philosophy do people continue to have notions of God?

Do rocks believe in God? 

I know, my servants, I know. 

And so that you can join my efforts more effectively at making humans more like rocks, I will let you in on an enduring truth that must be extinguished.   This information is highly confidential, please treat it accordingly.  The only other place this information is found is in the Bible, so as long as you don’t spill the beans, the secret should remain.

Here it is: human beings are fundamentally different from every other creation, including me, because humans are uniquely created in God’s image.


That’s why atheists, who must work to believe that they are no different from rocks, work so hard at believing they don’t believe in God.  It’s actually impossible, and explains why atheists are such gloomy characters.

And today’s news from the atheistified Science Digest helps show why.  I’m referring to Science Digest’s article entitled, “Humans ‘Predisposed’ to Believe in Gods and the Afterlife.”

According to the article:

A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.


Natural tendencies?   I’ll say.  And I’ve been trying to smother those  tendencies for centuries.  Why do you have to bring it up as scientifically verified?

Fortunately, the researchers throw me a bone in reporting:

The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.

Yes, atheism is a perfectly natural response!  And, I might add, this is why I like when an atheistic publication reports on such issues, because they should have written, “that both theism and atheism are reasoned responses . . .”

Hey, theogeeks, atheism is a theology!

While theism is the default response of the human mind, if one sufficiently succumbs to my lies, the foolish mind darkened by the wisdom of this world can suppress the default theism with feigned atheism.

Atheism is not only a reasoned response (according to my reasoning), it is a scientifically proven post-disposition of the human brain. 

Humans come into this world as fallen theists created in God’s image.  My job is to ensure that inborn sinfulness is nourished by worldly wisdom and vain philosophy so that the faint image remaining becomes almost completely obscure.

And every atheist that believes in unbelief confirms my success.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And the beat goes on.

And Put on the Helmet of Damnation

Posted in atheism, atheists, creation, Darwinism, evolution, False religion, secular humanism, Uncategorized with tags , , , on July 14, 2011 by devilbloggger


Have you heard about that Austrian dummkopf who convinced authorities to permit his driver’s license picture to include his religious headgear?  Yes, my servants.  You can read yesterday’s BBC article here about Niko Alm, atheist idiot, who claimed his atheistic religion of pastafarianism requires he wear a pasta strainer on his head.  Gute Arbeit, Helm Kopf!


Why, you ask, do you say he’s an idiot?

Isn’t he on your side? you ask.

My servants, come close.  I will impart some kingdom knowledge to you.  I trust that you will keep this confidential.  However, feel free to clue Mr. Alm into his naive foolishness.

As the BBC article notes:

A self-confessed atheist, Mr Alm says he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a light-hearted faith whose members call themselves pastafarians.

Have you heard of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  You haven’t?  Well let me clue you in.  The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was formed by a bunch of atheist fools who objected to the state of Kansas’ (USA) efforts teach the scientific truth about where atheists come from. 

Yes, at one point, it appeared the citizens of Kansas were on to my evolution lie and were going to let students in on the truth, which they called “intelligent design.”  Now, I’m no fan of truth, but the reaction of the atheist fools was an attempt at cleverness that threatens to backfire.  The atheist fools (OK, I’ll stop being redundant), the atheists wrote to the Kansas School Board asking for the “pastafarian” version of intelligent design to be taught to school children as an alternative to scientific intelligent design.

The central nondeity of the pastafarians is the flying spaghetti monster, an imaginary creature imagined by fools to be on par with God.  Adherents report sightings, provide propaganda, and actively proselytize.

And to remove all doubt about their cynical seriousness, the pastaheads state this on their website:

Whatever you decide, remember this: FSM is a real, legitimate religion, as much as any other.  The fact that many see this is as a satirical religion doesn’t change the fact that by any standard one can come up with, our religion is as legitimate as any other.  And that is the point.

Yes, that is the point, my servants.  It is the point at which this little prank stops being funny and starts to mightily threaten my kingdom.

How? You ask.

I’ll tell you.  And then I ask that each of you write to the Head Noodle and tell him to stop before he inadvertently poisons his own sauce.

Consider, my servants: What were the pastafarians objecting to in the first place?

Right!  They were objecting to the efforts of a religious group’s version of a creation story being taught to little chillens in Kansas.

And if the general public and the US courts ever catch on that pastafarianism is a religion, what does that mean for the current atheistic creation story taught to little chillens in Kansas?

Do you see my point?

No?  Oh, you of little fear.  How long must I put up with you?

Think:  The reason atheists object to intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of life is because even though it is it self-evidently true it also happens to be compatible with the Biblical creation story (for the most part).  And atheists hate God, hate the Bible, and ultimately hate Truth, so naturally they hate intelligent design.

And in the US the atheists have succeeded in convincing everyone to reject intelligent design in the public schools by trumpeting the sacred  “wall of separation of church and state” as forbidding any mingling of the Christian church and state. 

So far, so good.  But what happens, my servants, if people catch on that Darwinian evolution, which teaches that little chillens are the product of mindless, purposeless processes of nature, is the creation story of the religion of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?


Yes, my servants, now do you see?  The pastafarians are dangerously close to illustrating, even if in jest, that atheistic beliefs animate many, many religions in the US.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster may be intended to be a joke, but the truth they illustrate is far from funny.

Let me be plainly clear to even the fools who believe themselves wise: atheism is the theology of all manner of religions in the US, all of which hold Darwinian evolution to be their dogma of life’s existence. It is their creation story, and it is taught to school chillens every day.

So the dirty little secret is that there is no separation of church and state in the US.  There is only separation of theistic church and state.  Atheistic church and state are cozily intertwined at every level.

Atheists necessarily hold to Darwinian evolution (that is, they have no choice, regardless of the evidence).  What is taught in public schools?

Atheists have no basis for holding life sacred.  What is taught in public schools?

Atheists have no reason but to celebrate sex as natural, whether it be between boyboys, girlgirls, and whether married or not.  What is taught in public schools?

Atheists have no ultimate authority other than other men, so that government legitimately fulfills the role of provider and protector.  What is taught in public schools?

Atheists believe that people are ultimately good, and it is only society that makes them bad, so people are not to be blamed for their condition in life.  What is taught in public schools?

Get it now?

Yes, I know, my servants, I know.  That’s my point! 

As soon as people catch on that atheism is the theology of atheistic religions, they will realize that their little chillens are being indoctrinated in the dogmas of a religion every day, in the name of “secular” separation of church and state.

That’s why I’m very disappointed in the acts of atheist idiots like Mr. Alm.  He may think he’s funny, but I do not.  He just took one giant step toward the lid being blown of my “separation of church and state” ploy.

Atheist religions are just as much “churches” as theistic religions. 

Let’s hope the Americans never catch on.

Helmethead idiot!

Thank God for Evolution?

Posted in atheism, atheists, christians, creationism, Darwinism, evolution, religion with tags , , , , , , , on March 12, 2011 by devilbloggger

Hoo boy.

Sometimes I just have to sit back and count my curses.  I know you try hard, my servants, but sometimes you just go too far in your zeal for me and end up making my job harder.  I try to be patient, but patience is not one of my best traits.  Let me explain.

I have a great servant for my kingdom named Michael Dowd.  Mr. Dowd bills himself as a “reverend” and holds himself out as a an “evolutionary evangelist.”   According to his website he hopes to “promote Christian discussion of evolution,” via, among other avenues, webinars.  Yee hah!

Let me summarize some basics for you before I go to some gentle criticisms of Servant Dowd.  My most reverend Dowd believes that you and I are the product of natural, unguided, mindless processes that never had us in mind.  That is the definition of evolution, and it leaves no place for God, except for a private, imaginary type of God. 

So far, so good. 

I love that Mr. Dowd holds himself out as a Christian who has bought my lie so zealously that he “sees no conflict between faith and reason, heart and head, Jesus and Darwin.”  Yes, my lie as articulated in my deceitfulness by Servant Dowd is that “evolutionary theory can deepen rather than challenge faith.”  

In one sense this statement is true:  a true understanding of evolutionary theory will deepen faith; it will either deepen the Christian understanding of special creation due to Darwinism’s dearth of evidence, or it will deepen the atheistic understanding of creation despite nature’s wealth of evidence.

You see, my servants, here is my lie, which Servant Dowd touts at the top of his website: 

“Dowd argues that the conflict between evolution and religion is unnecessary and shows how we can recover the virtue of mutual respect, without anyone having to sacrifice deeply held principles.”

Question: Does Dowd expect that atheists will sacrifice their deeply held principles that God does not exist?  They must, if the “conflict” is between a science that denies the existence of God and a religion that demands it.

Or, does Dowd expect that Christians must sacrifice their deeply held principles that the Bible is God’s word, and that the evidence of nature supports a strong scientific inference of design that overwhelmingly confirms that word?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

You see,  my servants, please pay attention.  I will impart kingdom knowledge.  If you know Servant Dowd, please forward this to him.  I don’t expect him to understand immediately, but over time perhaps my kingdom wisdom will sink in.

The mire that Servant Dowd slogs around in is a mire of post-modern, lazy thinking that ignores the law of non-contradiction.   Essentially, the law of non-contradiction, which every serious thinker through history recognizes, and which every thinker uses in real life (as opposed to philosophical pontifications like Dowd’s), is that it is impossible for two conflicting truth claims to be true at the same time and in the same relationship.

Example: Either (1) God created life; or, (2) life is an occurrence of mindless, unguided process.  Both statements cannot be true.  There is no “third way”. 

Christians believe No. 1 above.  Evolutionists and atheists believe No. 2 above.  To resolve the conflict, someone must give up a deeply held principle.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

I love my lies infiltrating the mind of the worldly-wise.

You see, my servants, Servant Dowd’s statement is true in one condition.  He is exactly right if one’s religion is atheistic.  In this case, there is, by definition, no conflict between “evolution” and “religion”  and no one need sacrifice a deeply held belief to resolve conflict.

And it is exactly Servant Dowd’s ignorance on this point, my servants, that he has gone to far, and raised my ire.  In this month’s Skeptic Magazine, a magazine for everyone skeptical of everything except Darwinism, Servant Dowd has an article entitled, “Thank God for the New Atheists.”  Servant Dowd’s views are prized by the likes of Skeptic Magazine, as they are used to promote the idea that Christians can be skeptics too, if only they become unskeptical about Darwinism and believe in a private, imaginary God.

In the Skeptic article servant Dowd pleased me with his bold display of anti-Christian-but-curiously-religious-pseudo-Christian bona fides by boasting that “God is not a person.”  (What if to resolve conflict Servant Dowd has to give up that deeply held belief?  Ha ha ha ha ha!).

But then Servant Dowd blurts out a truth statement that I wish to conceal.  He states without any hint of its damaging consequences to my kingdom: 

“Religion is about right relationship with reality, not the supernatural.”

Uh, Servant Dowd, ummm, you might want to walk that one back ASAP.  You see, my friend, you make two mistakes.  First, reality includes the supernatural, you doofus.  It is on that deeply held principle that you go wrong on everything else.  But more damaging to my kingdom is that  if your statement is true, then atheism is a religion.  Materialism (the idea that only matter exists) is a religion.  Evolutionists are religionists.  And, you, my servant, are a reverend of a non-Christian religion.

You see, my servants, the problem?

My lies are spread on earth, in public schools, in the media, in politics, in culture because my viewpoints are considered to be “secular” and not “religious.”  I have labored hard over decades and centuries to make sure that the United States’ “separation of church and state” is always thought of as “separation of Christianity and state.” 

If word gets out that atheism, materialism, evolutionism, and every other of my God-less “isms” are religions, then I and my kingdom will experience a set back to the dark ages.

Please, my servants.  I know that atheism is a religion.  But keep that quiet, you hear?

Somebody tell Servant Dowd, please?

Hoo boy.

%d bloggers like this: