Pathologizing conservatism: The demonization of Park51 as template for a case study

by: Paul Rosenberg

Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 15:00

In the 2003 meta-analysis of 88 empirical studies "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition", the authors argued that--contrary to paranoid interpretations placed on their work--conservatism was not a form of mental aberration, but rather part of the normal range of human cognitive variation.  However, the surprisingly rapid evolution of intense conservative hostility to the building of the Park 51 cultural center--even resulting in acts of violence--clearly provides a case study in which mass pathological behavior DID emerge, in a very short period of time. In turn that episode provides a model that could be scaled up to describe a larger trajectory toward a fascist end-state, as I've discussed in a couple of recent diaries. WHat's more, the meta-analysis DOES help us to understand what was happening.  It presented evidence that the motivations involved were multi-factoral, and included SITUATIONAL effects as well as stable dispositional factors.  It's the combination of such factors that's responsible for mass phenomena exhibiting pathology well beyond what's seen simply by looking at isolated dispositional factors. And the end result of this process over a long enoug time, or enough repetitions can very well pave the way to fascism.

On Friday, Sept 10, Media Matters published "TIMELINE: Nine months of the right's anti-Muslim bigotry", which greatly expanded on a previous timeline by Justin Elliot at Salon's "War Room".  In the introduction to his piece, Elliot wrote:

In a story last week, the New York Times, which framed the project in a largely positive, noncontroversial light last December, argued that it was cursed from the start by "public relations missteps." But this isn't accurate. To a remarkable extent, a Salon review of the origins of the story found, the controversy was kicked up and driven by Pamela Geller, a right-wing, viciously anti-Muslim, conspiracy-mongering blogger, whose sinister portrayal of the project was embraced by Rupert Murdoch's New York Post.

The Media Matters timeline, which freely credits and quotes from Elliot's earlier piece, provides extensively detailed support for this account. It has a brief introduction, followed by chronological entries grouped by month since last December (except for the period January 2010-April 2010, when the story "went into hiding).  While extremely useful in itself to see how the anti-Muslim bigotry was stoked, the timeline also offers a framework for beginning to understand how this campaign reflects the hegemonic growth of movement conservatism in a time of flux, and how we can better understand it, while also shedding light on other related developments.  This also serves to provide an opportunity to begin to explain how an integrated cognitive theory of conservatism might work, including an elucidation of how dispositional and situational factors both play roles and can interact.

This diary is written in some haste--as are most blog diaries--and makes no pretense to the sort of rigor one should expect from a scholarly article, but I am drawing significantly from one such very comprehensive article below, the meta-analysis "Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition", and this diary is specifically intended to help spur further discussion, debate and analysis, rather than to stand as any sort of definitive summary. Furthermore, I'm only dealing with some aspects of a small subset of the discussion in that ambitious overview.  But it's enough, I warrant, to suggest the power a more robust effort might hold.

I will proceed as follows.  In section one, I will present a broad sketch of the time-line itself. In section two, I will reflect on it briefly in a general way.  In section three, I will introduce some relevant aspects of the analysis from "Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition."  These will provide a framework for looking at the timeline itself, but also for the larger framerwork of developments it is embedded within. I will provide a cursory examination of these in section four.

Paul Rosenberg :: Pathologizing conservatism: The demonization of Park51 as template for a case study
Section I: The Timeline

The timeline begins with the following introduction:

Cheered on by Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media, conservative activists spent the past year engaged in an anti-Muslim campaign that included efforts to block the planned Islamic center in lower Manhattan and demonize the imam spearheading the project. The bigotry has culminated in a Florida pastor's now-"suspended" plans to burn Qurans on September 11 -- plans that the pastor has explicitly linked to the controversy over the Islamic center.

The earliest entries are from December 2009. These include a December 8 story in the NY Times about the cultural center, in which Media Matters notes, "The Times emphasized the purpose of the center, which, according to project leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, was 'to push back against the extremists.'" Two attack posts by  Pamela Geller, and an appearance on Fox News by  Daisy Khan, wife of project leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and executive director of the project, who appeared with Laura Ingraham, filling in for Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor. The timeline entry further says:

During the interview, Ingraham criticized Rauf's statement that "it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima." She later added: "But I like what you're trying to do, and Ms. Khan, we appreciate it." Ingraham also stated during the interview, "I can't find many people who really have a problem" with the Islamic center, and told Kahn it's "fantastic" that "your group takes a moderate approach to Americanizing people, assimilating people, which I applaud."

Because of Geller's key role in fomenting the spread of hatred and disinformation, I present her first two timeline entries in their entirety:

Geller writes first Atlas Shrugs post on the center. That same day [as NYT story] in an Atlas Shrugs post, Pamela Geller reacted to the Times' article, writing: "I don't know what is more grotesque...jihad or the NY Times preening of it. The New York Times yet again misrepresents, obfuscates, and confuses infidels and kaffirs about Islam." In her post, Geller mostly discussed Sufism, the branch of Islam that Rauf and his followers belong to....

Geller attacks Islamic center as "Islamic domination and expansionism." In a December 21, 2009, post titled, "Mosque at Ground Zero: Adding Insult to Agony," Geller called the center a "giant victory lap" and wrote: "Any decent American, Muslim or otherwise, wouldn't dream of such an insult. It's a stab in eye of America. What's wrong with these people? Have they no heart? No soul?" Geller also claimed of the project: "This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is no accident."

The story then lies fallow until May, when New York Community Board 1 unanimously approved the commuity center, and Geller resumed her attacks.  Media Matters notes "In the post, Geller framed the issue as one of 'sensitivity' and claimed the project is a 'victory lap,' an 'insult,' and a 'stab in the eye of America'".  That same month, the story is picked up by the NY Post, which Elliot had noted is read by "Lots of opinion makers on the right... so it's not surprising that, starting that very day, the mosque story spread through the conservative -- and then mainstream -- media like fire through dry grass."  As the subsequent timeline shows, however, the story that spread was not the actual story, as it unfolded at the level of the community board, or as originally reported in the NY Times, but as imagined by Geller and other islamophobic conservative activists.

Here are just the bolded subject lines for all the timeline entries from May, showing not just the explosion of rightwing media coverage, but also the spread of anti-Muslim violence to Florida:

Geller resumes attack on Islamic center.
New York Post: "Mosque Madness at Ground Zero."
Islamic Center of Northeast Florida was firebombed.
Fox & Friends runs first of many segments on the center, hosting Rauf and 9-11 firefighter.
Geller focuses attacks on Rauf.
Geller appears on Fox News' Huckabee.
Geller appears on Fox & Friends.
Radio host Michael Berry: "I hope the mosque isn't built, and if it is, I hope it's blown up."

Later highlights include:

  • Geller holding a June 6 protest against Islamic center, with news reports putting crowd estimates between 350 and "more than 1,000," while Geller claimed that "some estimates ranged as high as 10,000."
  • On July 15, Media Matters reported that the National Republican Trust made an anti-mosque TV ad that NBC and CBS refused to air, reportedly because it "confuses moderate Islam with violent Jihad."
  • Palin calling on Muslims to "refudiate" the Islamic center on July 18, tweeting: "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate."
  • July 21, Florida church announcing plans to burn Quran on 9/11. 
  • Also on July 21, Newt Gingrich saying, "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."
  • On July 28, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement opposing Islamic center.  
  • Laura Ingraham flip-flops on Park51 on ABC's [August 4] Good Morning America to claim, "It's a finger in the eye, I think, of New York. ... This is sacred ground, OK?"
  • AP: "Foes of proposed mosques have deployed dogs to intimidate Muslims holding prayer."
  • [Aug 11] Geller falsely claims Rauf made comment blaming "the Jews" for 9-11.
  • Right-wing media blast Obama [Aug 13 statement] for supporting freedom of religion."
  • Gingrich compares Islamic center to "Nazis" putting a "sign next to the Holocaust museum." [August 16 edition of Fox & Friends]
  • [Dick] Morris: Park51 would be a "command center for terrorism." [August 18 edition of The O'Reilly Factor]
  • Anti-Park51 protests full of right-wing hate. [GET IMAGES]
  • [Glen] Beck falsely claims Rauf's wife said "all Americans hate Muslims." {August 24 Fox News show].
  • Vandalism at California mosque reportedly investigated as a hate crime; vandalism made reference to "Temple for the God of terrorism at Ground Zero." [August 25 Fresno Bee].
  • Vandals set fire to site of future mosque in Tennessee. [ABC August 29].
  • Right-wing media criticize Petraeus' [September 7]condemnation of pastor's plan to burn Qurans.
  • Right-wing equates burning Qurans with building Park51. [Led by Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck].
  • Geller calls Imam Rauf quote "disgusting" and claims that "anti-semitism is a basic tenet of Islam." [September 8].
  • Imam Rauf warns of "the danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security." [September 8, Larry King Live].
  • [Rightwing] Media distort Rauf remarks to claim he "threaten[ed] America."
  • Obama, Clinton, Gates urge pastor not to go through with Quran burning.
  • Pastor agrees to "suspend" Quran burning, which he explicitly links to Park51 controversy.
  • Others threaten to burn the Quran. [In Kansas and Wyoming].
  • Randall Terry, Tea Party group plans to tear pages out of Quran at White House on 9/11.  [They subsequently do so].

Section II: Reflections on The Timeline's Development

Toward the end of the timeline, when the Koran-burning did not take place, there were a few stories about how Koran's had previously been burned with virtually no attention paid to the events.  These stories were most significant for throwing into relief the fact that the totality of the hysterical anti-Islamic campaign was far, far greater than the sum of its parts.  The timeline summary above--as well as the Media Matters original--presents a picture of rapid, but primarily gradualist development, where each stage of hysteria builds incrementally on those before it.  In fact, the previous stages serve as the social contexts for the actors in subsequent stages.  It is this evolving context that gives the later phases their meaning and power.  That is why earlier Koran-burnings passed without notice, which the threat of the 9/11 Koran-burning became an international incident that General Patreas felt compelled to speak out against as endangering US troops.

It's also important to note how  conservative opinion shifted during this process. To begin with, Rauf was such a prominent and influential moderate that the Bush Administration had employed him to outreach to moderate Muslims in the Middle East.  When the cultural center was first announced, conservative commentator Laura Ingrahm praised the idea.  Yet, as the controversy was being generated, neither Bush, nor any high-ranking official of his administration stepped in to nip it in the bud, and one the attacks had developed a full head of steam, Ingraham readily switched sides.

A similar step-wise process was observed in Nazi Germany with respect to the gradually increasing stigmitization, isolation and demonization of the Jews.  It's often been noted that if the Nazis had tried to ship Jews off to concentration camps as soon as they took power in 1933, the public would never have gone along with it.  In more recent cases of ethnic cleansing and genocide, a similar prolonged preparation process has been observed, frequently involving intensive radio propaganda over periods of months or years before actual violence finally broke out.  Likewise, Koran-burnings and attacks on mosques in December 2009 would have drawn considerable negative reactions, before the propaganda campaign had had time progressively stigmatize, isolate and demonize American Muslims as a group.

Clearly, one cannot attribute people's actions--either individually or as a group--solely to a set of fixed attitudes or beliefs.  If one could, then there would have been no need for months or years of intense propaganda to them to act out in violent bigotry, or at least to tacitly accept and/or support others doing so.  Yet, equally clearly, there were some who took leading roles and helped to actively promote the ongoing processes of stigmatization, isolation, and demonization.  It is only by looking at both stable propensities and situational factors that we can hope to get a full picture of the processes involved.

Section III: Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

Conservatism per se--particularly in any given individual--does not always lead to stigmatization, isolation, demonization persecution of outgroups, but conservatism does involve tendencies that can lead in that direction when the conditions are ripe. The most obvious of these in terms of content of beliefs are Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Rightwing Authoritarianism (RWA), both of which involve somewhat similar, but distinct forms of antipathy toward socially subordinate groups.  There are, however, also tendencies that have more to do with needs for order, security, predictability, etc., which can be equally important.

"Political Conservatism As Motivated Social Cognition" (PCMSC) is a complex analysis attempting to integrate a broad range of such theories, and to apply it's full analysis in this case would take far more time and space than I can afford--or expect you to sit still for.  But I can take small chunk of its analysis to illustrate the kind of dynamic that a full-fledged analysis would further flesh out.

One set of three theories considered in PCMSC fall into the category of "Epistemic and Existential Need Theories" which "place particular emphasis on the mutually constitutive role of cognitive and motivational processes in determining conservative response tendencies." Put simply, certain motivations lead to certain thought processes, which in turn lead lead to certain motivations.  It's this reinforcing dynamic makes such theories particularly relevant to the subject at hand.  

The three theories considered are lay epistemics, regulatory focus, and terror management.  Key aspects of these three theories are:

  • A central motivational construct in the theory of lay epistemics is the need for cognitive closure, which refers to the expedient desire for any firm belief on a given topic, as opposed to confusion and uncertainty.

  • [Regulatory focus theory] distinguishes between two categories of desired goals, namely those related to advancement, growth, and aspirations (ideals) and those related to safety, security, and responsibilities (oughts). Distinct regulatory systems are presumed to address these two classes of goals.

  • Terror management theory posits that cultures and their attendant worldviews serve to buffer anxiety (and prevent terror) arising from the thoughts humans invariably have about their own mortality....  When confronted with thoughts of their own mortality people appear to behave more conservatively by shunning and even punishing outsiders and those who threaten the  status of cherished worldviews.

Of these three, lay epistemics is the most fruitful to focus on for the purposes at hand.  The reason is fairly straightforward: in this instance, as well as the larger framework of the post-9/11 "war on terror", the desire for cognitive closure is repeatedly frustrated by new developments, either directly or indirectly tied to the fact that previous premature closure has produced inescapable failure, forcing another round of quest for closure.  This repetitive cycle can in turn be illuminated through the lens of regulatory focus theory, as a repeatedly failed effort to secure safety and security.

Here's how the paper's discussion of lay epistemics begins:

Lay Epistemic Theory

In an effort to unify cognitive and motivational accounts of behavior, Kruglanski (1989) developed a theory of lay epistemics whereby knowledge and beliefs are arrived at through a process of motivated informational search. Knowledge acquisition, according to this theory, follows a two-step epistemic process of hypothesis generation and testing (Popper, 1959). Informational factors include the availability and accessibility of various knowledge structures that the individual may use to construct the relevant hypotheses and their testable implications. Often, such constructive processes can be quite labor intensive and effortful. They may require considerable mental resources, including cognitive capacity and epistemic motivation. A central motivational construct in the theory of lay epistemics is the need for cognitive closure, which refers to the expedient desire for any firm belief on a given topic, as opposed to confusion and uncertainty.

....[T]he benefits of possessing cognitive closure include the potential affordance of predictability and the guidance of action....the need for cognitive closure should be elevated in any situation in which the importance of action looms large, as under time pressure, ambient noise, mental fatigue, or alcohol intoxication, because such states render sustained information processing to be subjectively costly.

Clearly, the real post-911 world has created conditions in which "the importance of action looms large," even if it's not action that people take directly.  There is a strong felt need for collective action as a nation, as well as strong identification with the nation--however selective that identification may be. This goes far beyond the sorts of test situations that researchers have been able to test for in controlled experiments, but that only makes the basic argument more compelling.

With that as the general background, the paper goes on to describe the Need for Closure Scale (NFCS), and present some of items used on it, which are distinctively non- ideological in natue:

D. M. Webster and Kruglanski developed and validated an individual-difference measure of the need for cognitive closure, the Need for Closure Scale (NFCS). This 42-item scale comprises five factors or subscales, respectively described as (a) preference for order and structure, (b) emotional discomfort associated with ambiguity, (c) impatience and impulsivity with regard to decision making, (d) desire for security and predictability, (e) closed-mindedness. Some illustrative items of this scale are "I think that having clear rules and order at work is essential for success,"; "I'd rather know bad news than stay in a state of uncertainty"; "I usually make important decisions quickly and confidently"; "I don't like to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it"; and "I do not usually consult many different opinions before forming my own view."

Note that the subscales reveal an internal structure of closely-related, but not identical factors.  Next, the authors go on to note that need for closure functions similarly either viewed situationally or as a disposition, with certain related outcomes:

Whether evoked situationally or measured as a stable personality dimension, the need for closure has been found to produce the same consequences. Specifically, it fosters the tendency to seize on information that affords closure and to freeze on closure once it has been attained.... If the theory of lay epistemics is correct, there are situational and dispositional factors that may encourage a general cognitive-motivational orientation toward the social world that is either open and exploratory or closed and immutable.

I find this dichotomy of  orientations suggestively illuminated by the regulatory focus approach, which the authors introduce thus:

Regulatory Focus Theory

Higgins proposed a regulatory focus theory that is pertinent to the psychology of conservatism. This theory distinguishes between two categories of desired goals, namely those related to advancement, growth, and aspirations (ideals) and those related to safety, security, and responsibilities (oughts). Distinct regulatory systems are presumed to address these two classes of goals.

The promotion system reflects individuals' self-regulation in relation to their hopes and  aspirations (ideals), and it gratifies nurturance needs. The goal of the promotion system is accomplishment. By contrast, the prevention system reflects self-regulation in relation to one's duties and obligations (oughts), and the goal of this system is safety.

As you might guess from the term "nurturance needs" in the passage above, there's a strong suggestion of a relationship to Lakoff's Strict Father/Nurturant Parental model:

According to this theory, a parenting history of protection focusing on the avoidance of negative outcomes combined with the exercise of punishment as a disciplinary tool produces a strong prevention focus as a stable individual orientation. A parenting style of encouraging accomplishments by focusing on achieving positive outcomes and withdrawing love as a form of discipline produces a strong promotion focus as a stable individual orientation.

It is also plausible that an emphasis on prevention (vs. promotion) induces a heightened need for cognitive closure as one consequence of the craving for a secure and comprehensible reality.

Section IV: How These Factors Apply

This is already a rather long diary, so I'm not going to atempt anything exhaustive here. To the contrary, I'm just going to make a few rather cursory observations that I hope are fairly transparent, and don't require much in the way of argument at least to appear as plausible explanations.

First of all, the Bush/Cheney early post-9/11 rhetoric and behavior clearly played into the need for cognitive closure.  There was an initial period of bewilderment which is not well remembered, but people were genuinely stunned and confused.  "Why would anyone do that?" millions of people wondered.  In time, Bush's narrative became dominant: "They hate us for our freedoms" and they are "evildoers." The first explanation was riddled with contradictions--in fact, it's far more accurate to say "They hate us for their own lack of freedom," but it's the nature of the need for cognitive closure not be bothered by such things.  Calling them "evildoers" is cartoonish, 3-year old logic. But if cognitive closure's your thing, it' pretty damn hard to beat that.

Similarly, attacking Iraq--which had nothing to do with 9/11--only made sense from a perspective that valued cognitive closure above all. "Scare the bajeezus out of 'em!" was the logic.  It didn't matter a bit who was responsible.

But, of course, in the real world, it did. A promotion system orientation, leading to a greater understanding of the complicated realities of the Middle East, would have served us far better.

Instead, we got clusterfuck. The lack of real-world effectiveness ultimately generated more and more problems, which first caused people to hunker down even more, clinging tightly to their cognitive closure, but eventually it created a whole new constellation of problems that needed to be dealt with via another round of cognitive closure.

One aspect of how this played out was a conservative reorientation--a flip-flop very similar to the one when conservatives turned away from the first Gulf War to militia movement.  As this flip-flop was executed, the Bush rationale that sustained our oil alliances became expenbable, at best.  The fact that Palin and others stigmatized Obama as a Muslim/terrorist/alien was a tremendous situational factor that facilitated this transition to a new problematic situation, for which a very different form of cognitive closure emerged.  In this version, the "good Muslims" became utterly expendible at best.  And Pamela Gellar became a leading figure in articulating the new form of cognitive closure.

In it's earliest soft form, there could be "good Muslims", but not if they "loved their freedoms." A "good Muslim" would do what they were told, no questions asked, not even if what they were told had not been figured out yet.  How close to "Ground Zero" could they be?  We'll get back to you on that.

But, of course, at the same time there was hostility, even violence against mosques in other parts of the country having nothing to do with Ground Zero.  It was the mosques themselves that were the problem--and, hence, Muslims themselves that were the problem.  And this is what you can see in the timeline above, the spread of this new form of cognitive closure, the shutting down of all thought around a very simple formulation that puts an end to all thought, all discussion, all debate.

The things that were said about Park51, increasingly unhinged from reality, make perfect sense if we see them as the spreading influence of a need for closure and the promulgation of theme for what that closure should be: Moslems="bad".  This was particularly appealing since the GOP had no responsibility whatsoever to conduct any sort of foreign policy.  They could say anything, make the conduct of foreign affairs virtually impossible.  That was a positive good for them, since it made it more likely that Obama would be a one-term President.  That's literally all that they cared about.

And with that sort of tunnel vision, there was really no limit to how extreme, how unhinged from reality they would become.  In fact, the more extreme they might become, the more likely that yet another massive failure would occur... thus starting the whole cycle all over again.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Just a monstrous post. An incredible amount of work. (0.00 / 0)
And the fact that it dovetails directly into our predicament is while not surprising, is an added benefit.

The abuse of the public psyche, the manipulation of memes and defensible worries, into fanatical attacks is instructive. As was the manipulation of 'news' in Toronto, where they left an open empty police car in the protesters route for six hours, without a single police officer within two blocks, until "somehow" it was set on fire, and then left again without any police, for another two hours so the television cameras could be brought in.

This is our predicament.

Thank you.


The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

What is the counter cycle? (0.00 / 0)
And with that sort of tunnel vision, there was really no limit to how extreme, how unhinged from reality they would become.  In fact, the more extreme they might become, the more likely that yet another massive failure would occur... thus starting the whole cycle all over again.

If we are to engage in some form of counter cultural hegenomic struggle, where are we to aim our effort?

What is your plan?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

More Easily Asked Than Answered, I'm Afraid (0.00 / 0)
This isn't the only cognitive problem we face.  Basically, I think the entire 18th Century Enlightenment notion of a liberal state and how it ideally functions needs to be overhauled.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
Let's move the conversation forward by hashing out those concerns. We are talking about remaking a culture, are we not?

You've never shied away from complex issues in the past - why not apply yourself to this issue? You might even find it turns some enemies into allies.

Take your own advice - change your perspective (if only for a moment) from focus on nattering naybobs of negativity toward something you and jeffroby can agree upon. Its a long term deal anyway, right? Why smack down those closest to you?

Build it and they will come. (and I detest Kevin Costner).

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
A Cultural Pattern (0.00 / 0)
There is actually extensive evidence that this tendency:

A central motivational construct in the theory of lay epistemics is the need for cognitive closure, which refers to the expedient desire for any firm belief on a given topic, as opposed to confusion and uncertainty.

Is specifically American.  I don't have the studies at hand right now, but they found that people from China, for example, are much more able to tolerate ongoing ambiguity than Americans.  

--Aaron Schutz (Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing)

Here's a PDF of the data on cultural approaches to contradiction (0.00 / 0)
Kaiping Peng
University of California at Berkeley
Richard E. Nisbett
University of Michigan

--Aaron Schutz (Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing)

[ Parent ]
Sorry To Be So Late Responding (0.00 / 0)
You have a point, which is why I've considered myself a Taoist of sorts since I was about 8 or 10.  However, a couple of more thoughts:

(1) It's not just Americans.  It's more of a European, Aristotelian thing.

(2) This doesn't actually disprove the need for cognitive closure.  Rather, it presents a more nuanced form for closure to take, which may not be closed at all for one who deeply understands, but that is closure enough that people can go on and attend to other things.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]

Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox