78. There ought to be a better way to express this. Either way there is a period of peace; either way there is the antichrist; but the difference is when the final end will arrive after the antichrist: shortly, or after a long while ? Thus, the first timeline is the shortened one: Crisis averted, period of peace, tribulation-antichrist, and the End. The second timeline is the longer one: Crisis not averted, false peace, tribulation-antichrist, 1000 year period of peace, last tribulation-End. How might this affect the shortening of the tribulation which is promised ? "And unless the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh should be saved: but, for the sake of the elect which he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days" (Mark 13:20). It does not, as we see in Apoc. 20:9.
78A. This must be by design.
78B.
He must have been aware of some kind of plan based on how the
Apocalypse is structured; but as the plan is not stated clearly, he did not know what it was, and neither did the Church. But it was there all along. Pius XII did not err when he did not consecrate Russia with all the bishops of the world. If this was done, a request which was not intended to be fulfilled, it is because the head of the Holy Family decreed it be done. He never sinned, but nevertheless had the mark of original sin, and as such is capable of arranging this. He can be 'not entirely forthright' without actually lying. But it is true that the Fatima requests were requests and not commands. The only thing really commanded was the revelation of the third secret in 1960. Only a false pope would not heed such a command, whereas a true pope may not heed a request. We think St. Joseph arranged things this way for the devil to mislead himself without actually lying.
78C. To 'adore' the antichrist after the unsealing of the book of life is a kind of 'new original sin', and a mortal sin. We have likened the unsealing to a kind of 'unmaking the Ring', or 'unmaking original sin' as it were (a unique concept introduced in Lord Of The Rings, and, we suspect, for this very purpose). There are many consequences which follow this line; but for now the point is, when the book of life is unsealed, everything has changed (and yet some things will remain the same).
78D. He might present the book of life this way; or he might simply declare that everyone is saved anyway (except for those who oppose him) without reference to it. There are any number of lines he can take, and if they are contradictory, it does not matter; like Vatican '2's religious indifferentism, one way may be good for some, and another way good for others. The one condition being that everyone accept him as 'the legitimate successor', or at least not to deny it. For those who are undecided, they are not lost according to these conditions.
79.
This is like 'negative optioning'. In the corporate world, in order
to wring more money out of paying customers, a new service may be added
which was not asked for and for which the customer will be billed unless
he opts out of it instead. Except in this case one must opt out of the antichurch, according to the man of sin. The truth is closer to the reverse; that one must actively opt into it, by accepting the mark of the beast. But those who 'adore' the beast are already there in spirit (Apoc. 13:8). There is a little grey area so long as one has not accepted the mark.
79A. We cannot decide whether the antichrist will completely ignore it, or completely co-opt it. Anything in the middle is ineffectual, and he will not be ineffectual. It is possible he will take both lines, and this will not seem a contradiction to those who accept the one or the other. Not to belabour the point, but it is puzzling.
This depends in part on whether the sixth seal event is acknowledged as such or whether it will be associated solely with Garabandal's 'Warning'. Again, it is difficult to see how he can completely ignore Apocalypse. But he if acknowledges the book of life, he has to acknowledge Apocalypse; the reverse is not necessarily true.
80. Some may find this manner of going about it to be unconventional; i.e. using logical terminology related to computers. The thing is, that is the only way to come to this understanding of it. We do not think Apocalypse is meant to be conventional. Having said that, we continue:
The point is that this book with everyone's name in it existed before
the original sin. The implications of this are far reaching. In military
terms, this is called a failsafe.
However,
it is absolutely not a factor in the history of salvation until it is
unsealed. Everything was done, it seems, assuming the worst-case scenario: That
this book would never be unsealed. When it is unsealed, it will be of
benefit; but we will not know how far that goes. As for everyone already
saved through the Church and the Old Law, this affects them not at all.
To put it in Boolean logic terms: If one is in the Church (or Old Law), one is there AND in the book of life (sealed or not), and is saved. Same for the OR function: If one is in the Church OR the book of life (still sealed), one is not condemned (as per the Last Judgement); but to remain in the book of life, the requirements for that AND the 'books that were opened' before the throne (Apoc. 20:12) have to be compared to a positive result.
However, the exact requirements for one to remain in the Book of Life is not for us to know, and one should not try to know. (It is enough to know to pray, and avoid sin, and do penance).
For the OR function above, it only works if the book of life is still sealed (and thus, condition is true by default). It does not work if the second condition is not true (not written in the book of life). To explain:
The
only impossible result (using Boolean logic) is to be in the Church (or
Old Law) but not the book of life. This is a chimera, and impossible.
(This would be as if the antichrist were the same as Christ. And as if one can choose between the Church and the book of life, as though one opposes the other, or at least are two equal alternatives - an impossibility. It is not even possible for apostates who had the baptism but lost the Faith, as they are out of the Church. They are, however, not blotted out of the book of life at this time).
So
to avoid the second death, one is both in the Church AND the Book
(1~1); OR at least in the Book (0~1); but not in the Church AND out of
the Book, an impossibility (1~0); and not neither (0~0). The last one represents non-existence or else a reprehensible one. It also does not 'compute' until the book is unsealed.
80A. We think it is possible that the names of every possible possibility of generation derived from Adam and Eve (a barely imaginable huge number) is written therein. This includes their possible names or otherwise some way to distinguish them. We think this is why it was 'written within and without' - every possible possibility is accounted for, and there are no more afterwards. This may seem excessive to some, but not to God Who is infinite, and created the entire universe with life on only one tiny speck in a corner of it, so to speak. In the end, to match with the book of life one must first exist (Apoc. 20:12) as the first criterion.
It is true that God knows how everything will unfold, down to the smallest detail, including who will be born, who is predestined, etc. Even so, there is free will to take into account. Also, we think that if the book of life is written like this it is not excessive so much as being thorough.
81.
That he is not the saviour is obvious to the elect at the time but is not so for
the rest of the world. For people to choose to reject him, they have to
intellectually assent to the truth rather than be swayed by signs and
emotion. The elect are signed for this purpose.
82. The Book Of Destiny, p. 50.
82A. We think St. Thomas is closer to the truth in that the name 'becomes indelible through perseverance and the entrance into eternal glory'. We might add that the reverse happens depends on one's conduct in life. But if one has entered into eternal glory beforehand, then the book only confirms this; and vice versa: entrance into eternal glory confirms one's spot in the book. This is part of the reason why we said (footnote #80) that it is impossible to be in the Church in the state of grace and not in the book of life. This also tends towards our contention that while it is yet sealed, no changes are made to its contents.
83. There
is yet another angle to explore on this. One can lose salvation after
being baptized but can recover his state of grace afterwards with
repentance and the sacraments. It is to be wondered whether, after it is
unsealed, the book of life may act in a similar fashion.
But
before it is unsealed, one's baptismal status or state of soul has no
reference at all to the book of life. That is one of the main points we
are attempting to make clear.
But
the predestined are written along with everyone else therein. God's
foreknowledge of their perseverance is thus accounted for, and nothing
is lost to them whether or not the book of life is ever unsealed or
becomes 'active'.
84. As
this is not relevant to this inquiry we will pass over those details
(concerning the letters to the seven churches), except to say
that those who are reading them when the time comes will understand it.
85.
A complete look at the last two chapters of Apocalypse is beyond the
scope of this examination. As this particular interpretation with which
we have been proceeding has not before been attempted, there is no
complete answer yet for the last two chapters. What is given is merely a
beginning to be perhaps continued at a later time. The accounts of Mgsr.
Haydock, Fr. Berry and Fr. Kramer aid in this regard.
86. We will revisit this statement further on in this section. It concerns the center of this whole treatment.
87.
We have no idea what this may be like. As a starting point, we may
safely conclude it will be more interesting than before. Some think that
the 'new heaven' has to do with the sky and the atmosphere surrounding
earth; and if it were the Millennium, this would more likely be true, as
the rest of the universe will not also need to be renewed before the
consummation.
As
an added note: At first, misunderstanding Fr. Kramer's view, it was
thought that he meant that literally a 'new heaven and a new earth'
would appear, though it is apparent now that he is describing the
changed state of the world after the antichrist in which there shall be
no more 'mystery of iniquity' or an implacable enemy against the Church
attempting to lead souls to hell. The victory is complete. Even so, we
do not see chapter twenty-one describing the renewal in quite those
terms.
87A. In 'Addition to section III'
(concerning more about the Gospel accounts), at footnote 40B, the
'abomination unto desolation' and the army which surrounds Jerusalem was
discussed. There are no details given in Apoc. 20:8 other than that the
army (Gog, and Magog) "encompassed the camp of the saints, and the
beloved city". This army was destroyed in verse nine ("And there came
down fire from God out of heaven, and devoured them") but it is not said
what they did while they were there. The only solution which is apparent is that the Gospel accounts of Sts. Matthew, Mark and Luke,
concerning both Jerusalem and the 'abomination unto desolation' standing
in the holy place, is not what is meant by 'the camp of the saints, and
the beloved city' of Apoc. 20:8. This may refer to
Portugal, and perhaps one other region; as the 'camp of the saints' and
the 'beloved city' are not the same place, or in the same place (probably). The army "came up across
the whole breadth of the earth" (Apoc. 20:8~Knox) so it may stretch all
the way from Portugal to, say, Moscow (not continuously, but presumably in divisions of some sort). Roughly in between them is
Jerusalem, which if the verse is taken literally, is overrun along with the holy
place so that the 'abomination unto desolation' is set up there (Luke 21:24).
88. Not discounting Fr. Kramer's conclusions, which were arrived at from a different direction. For now it might be said that The Book Of Destiny is a 'first timeline' interpretation of Apocalypse; though it arrived very late (1955).
89. Ezechiel 2:9 and 3:1-3 has a book (or scroll) "written within and
without: and there were written in it lamentations, and canticles, and
woe". Thus it has a superficial similarity with the books mentioned in
Apocalypse 5:1 and 10:2. These cannot be the same books or even related
in any significant way, except two at least are concerned with prophecy (Ez.
2:9 and Apoc. 10:2). Ezechiel's book he had already eaten as
instructed. This does prefigure St. John's action but not in its
details; only insomuch as it concerns prophetic things. It shows that some prophecy is conditional. What is interesting
is that Ezechiel's book contains details in itself which are found separate in the books of Apocalypse: That of being 'written within and without'
and of being consumed. But the book of Apoc.10:2 cannot be the same as
the book of Apoc. 5:1 as it is 'little' and it is 'open' (no mention of
the size was made in Apoc. 5:1; thus this detail serves to differentiate
between them). It is true that in the ordering of the
Apocalypse chapters the 'little book open' appears after the seals
have been opened, but this detail is not meant to confuse us.
In any case, it does not follow that after the book of life is unsealed it is opened immediately (in Apoc. 20:12, it is
open with the other books of each individual soul for the judgement). However, it does seem
to be opened, or accessed, in Apoc. 13:8 and 17:8, in which those who
'adore the beast' are not found written in the book of life. This would
suggest, as in Apoc. 3:5, that changes can be made to its contents
before the Last Judgement of Apoc. 20:12.
It
also tells us the extreme gravity with which the antichrist's presence
is treated (he is not just another false pope!). To 'adore' him is to be
erased from the book of life; it cannot be more serious than
that. One cannot follow him out of fear, or expedience; that, too, will
count as 'adoration':Tto act in such a way in the external forum will
be treated the same as genuine intent; conversely, one who does not
show such adoration externally (for whatever reason) but does so internally will also garner the same penalty.
To
follow him out of fear or expedience will lead one to be constrained to accept the 'mark' of
the beast and also the condemnation that entails: "And these were
followed by a third angel, who cried aloud, Whoever worships the beast
and his image, or wears the beast’s mark on forehead or hand, he too shall drink; but the wine he shall drink is God’s anger, etc" (Apoc. 14:9-10~Knox).
If
one should fall in line with the antichrist but afterwards repent, is it
possible to be restored to it ?
When
the temple was closed, so that no one was able to enter, it may be said
that no one can be saved then: "And the temple was filled with smoke
from the majesty of God, and from his power; and no man was able to
enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were
fulfilled" (Apoc. 15:8). This is the state of things after the martyrdom
of chapter fourteen (see "Third Secret Martyrdom Vision..."). And since one of the four living creatures (!) had given the vials to the seven angels, it is doubtful
that even the Holy Rosary could save anyone then, if one waited until past
this point to repent: "And one of the four living creatures gave to the
seven angels seven golden vials, full of the wrath of God, who liveth
for ever and ever" (Apoc. 15:7). Nothing more can be added with any
certainty.
89A. Reconsidering this question, we are not sure. God is very thorough. If the book contains the names of every possible possibility then it will also contain the resulting descendants for alternate timelines. Following that logic, it would also contain a great many possible conceptions with combinations that could not be willed by God. Perhaps the cosmos itself provides a clue: Let us say that all of space represents every possible possibility of descent from Adam and Eve, regardless of whether or not it is desirable. Most of it is empty; but stars are clustered in galaxies; and galaxies are also gathered in clusters. These might represent in an analogous manner the various possible genealogies derived from various lineages descended from Adam and Eve which may be willed by God.
(The various 'possible possibilities' cannot cross generations: For instance, the generations derived from 1,000 AD contain possible descendants only from across that generation; there are no combinations possible from that generation and 120 years before, and 120 years after. This stands to reason).
Then there are various possible timelines to consider. This narrows the number. In the end, as we have seen, there are only two; but within either of them are many possible variations. Their scope is limited. The omniscience of God does not allow for anything unexpected (to Him) and yet with free will there can be any number of variances.
The question is whether there are variances which might appear in the book of life but not in actuality. With God's omniscience, it is possible there are no such variances. However, if the first timeline was in ascendance, there certainly would be. So it might be possible in the second. However, it does not matter as any entry which is null does not result in any decision regarding the soul which might have been.
This raises the question of whether, possibly, the 'little book open' might represent the book of life after all. If it represents names which will never be born, and if the judgement of all previous generations will not thus be affected (because it is never unsealed), what purpose might it serve ? It would make sense for it to be consumed in that case. The only problem with this theory is that if it is unsealed, the first timeline cannot have come about for the 'little book open' to be consumed, as the point of the second timeline is that it is unsealed. It is as if circular (this peculiarity is the subject of footnote #116). It might be contained somehow in the Apocalypse which is itself consumed (or so we think) as the open book in chapter ten. That would account for it in that case. But as the first timeline did not come to pass, the question is academic; still it should be asked as a counterpoint to our own timeline. In fact the whole idea of the first timeline is as a counterpoint to the second. What might have happened (and seemingly was supposed to happen) sheds light on what did happen and which was hitherto shrouded until then.
Dogmas concerning the judgement. We are aware of the dogmas concerning the immediacy of the personal and eternal judgement of each soul upon death which cannot be changed. That is true...as long as the book of life was under seal. Our point is that the same Authority Who defined these dogmas also created the sealed book 'from the foundation of the world' which predates original sin and everything which came afterwards, including all defined dogma. As we have said, the book of life was as if it did not hitherto exist. If it was not sealed, in a way that implied its non-existence, that is, if it was open, then those dogmas would remain exactly the same. Our point is always that its unsealing makes a difference, otherwise there is no point in its being there. The Church was already there, as a kind of 'open book' version of the sealed book. So each personal judgement is 'immediate and eternal' unless (the great unless) the book of life is unsealed before the last and general judgement, in which the soul is reunited to the body to go to its eternal fate - which changes for the body if original sin is, as it were, 'unmade'.
That last part is the most difficult as it has no ready explanation. But the thing is, the immediate judgement is made before the soul is reunited to the body. If the book of life factors in, what might that do ? That is what we have been trying to explain, as in this entirely unplanned footnote and its extension.
For those defined dogmas concerning the immediate and personal judgement we think 'the great unless' is the unstated part, implied with the existence of the book of life and active upon its unsealing. The unstated part may as well not be there (as it is not), even as the book of life is not, so long as it remains sealed. In other words, an unstated additional condition exists if it is stated to exist prior to the making of the original condition - even if it is unknown to exist at the time, along with its particulars. Even the secret of Fatima was not that hidden; the third part was known to exist when the first two parts were revealed (but before then, it was known only that there was a secret and nothing more); but with the book of life, the secret of its meaning was unknown even as its existence was unknown until Daniel, and then only really spoken of in Philippians (4:3) and in Apocalypse.
Is there an example which conveys this ? Perhaps it is from Eden: Adam and Eve were warned that they would die if they partook of the forbidden fruit; the devil deceived them, and they ate, and sinned; but what nobody knew (save God) at the time was that one day there would be a Redeemer to save them from the death; there was no point in mentioning that detail before they had sinned since the condition which required a Redeemer did not yet exist.
Seemingly circular logic. The 'hidden additional condition' in fact did exist even as Our Lord spoke the words upon which those particular dogmas are based. He could have added, 'so long as the book of life remains sealed', but that would defeat its purpose; but moreover, so long as the book remained sealed, it really was as though it did not exist, so there was no point in mentioning it. This is another 'circular' element (also discussed in footnote #116).
We think there is a connection between the papacy's being 'taken away' due to the devil's attempt to deceive the whole Church by substitution of the true pope for a false one, and the 'hidden additional condition' we have proposed. It seems as if the one enabled the other. As had been stated elsewhere, what the devil attempted paradoxically resulted in a kind of reversal. So those dogmas, defined by the papacy which, without this 'hidden additional condition', makes this interpretation of the book of life impossible, must not speak against this solution of the book of life (which unsealing was made possible by the papacy's existence in the first place). This seems like 'circular' logic again, which is why it is so difficult to explain, and why it is necessary to try it from different directions; so to attempt to sum up this paragraph: The same papacy which defined the dogmas which make this interpretation seemingly impossible is the same which made the unsealing of the book of life possible, by its existence as the papacy, and which had to be 'taken away' (2 Thess 2:7) in due time.
Or we can look at it from another direction: Nothing which happened afterward applies to the book of life, although it came before. But as it was sealed, nothing can apply to it. But the book can only be unsealed upon those conditions in which the devil tried to subvert the papacy and use it against the Church herself. In so doing, he subverted his own plan.
As there is no way of phrasing this which seems sufficient to express it, we will only say that this particular attack upon the papacy resulted in the unsealing of the book of life as a necessary consequence of the devil's attempt to use the papacy against itself and the Church.
The reversal is reflected in Apocalypse. But in Apocalypse itself we can see a reversal which reflects this new state of affairs: In chapter thirteen it is written that all of them that adored the beast was not written in the book of life (this necessarily implies that everyone who did not is written in the book of life). This is an exact mirror image of the Church, in which all of the saved are attached to the Church through the papacy. This is why it was not enough for the devil to install his antipapacy: No, he has to try to draw the whole world into it, as a reverse of what the victory of the Church would have meant for the world, in the first timeline only, before the antichrist: That all nations would become part of the Church. Otherwise, it happens after the antichrist, in the second timeline only.
Now it is a little clearer why absolutely nothing of this could be said before it was time. And Our Lady of Fatima did not say so either. The only example of a concept we have seen anywhere which conveys something like this idea is found here.
89B. As for the particular criteria by which these comparisons may be made, any ideas one may have will be, at best, uncertain. And to try to define its exact parameters is folly. What we know for sure is in Apoc. 13:8, 17:8, 21:8).
90.
And perhaps the second beast of chapter thirteen will be an 'anti-John
the Baptist'. His 'mark' of the beast is a kind of anti-baptism, one
which formally takes one out of the book of life even as they are become
(spiritually) dead into the world (rather than being 'dead to the world', that they may have life). At that point, it is merely a formality for
all of them who already worship the antichrist; but for them that are more afraid than worshipful, it is at this point where they may
also lose their place in the book of life.
90A. If they were not, it means they were predestined for hell. As we have seen previously, what is the book for if those who are saved are confirmed by it ? At this point we ought to offer a 'book of life' perspective on sin and justice. Sin, by its nature, is an affront to the infinite dignity of God; the sin is not as great as He against whom the sin is made. This explains the fall of the fallen angels: They had knowledge at the beginning and no disadvantage as original sin. However, all of us after Adam and Eve are born without knowledge and with original sin - in essence a blank and stained slate in darkness. Our point is that the book of life justly balances this disadvantage, and we think St. Joseph (called 'the just') was born to participate in its unsealing, even as the Blessed Virgin was born to be Mother of the Redeemer, Whose Merits made the book of life possible and, moreover, has been opening the seals.
We do not intend, of course, to say that God's justice is unjust
- when we mean to say is that, from the perspective of Heaven, in
considering those who are to go to Heaven, the weight of sin is felt in
full.
If the requirements for salvation seemed arduous to some (despite the sacraments and aids available) it was for our own good, so that this book may one day be unsealed. It is another paradox. Must it be added that it is preferred that the standards be high, but that due to weakness and ignorance from original sin it is understandable that many did not achieve it ?
It is to be expected that the antichrist will make many accusations of the Church being too harsh in the past. From that perspective, then perhaps he will ignore the book of life. It remains difficult to say one way or the other.
92. The subject is explored further in "Equality/Equalism: The Modern False God And False Religion". Basically whatever is deemed 'unequal' according to whatever standard is expedient at the time is 'an evil'. To change this is what they consider to be 'justice'.
93.
If the goal is to cause people to be 'blotted out' from the book of
life, then it is the adoration of the antichrist which will do that for
certain. What is hitherto not obvious is how the book of life being
unsealed improves the chances for souls. In fact it is still not
obvious.
94.
One may possibly make an almost circular error in these verses: People
do not love the truth, therefore the operation of error is sent, and
they believe the antichrist in the end. But perhaps the operation of
error is sent, people are found not to believe the truth, so the
antichrist is sent. We have tried to explain it without falling into
this circular perspective. Are those that are doomed ('them that
perish') thus doomed before or after the operation of error is sent ?
And is this operation of error sent to confirm them in their error, in
that if people do not believe the truth while it was there, they believe in error when it is established instead ? (It seems to apply on different levels depending on the person: If people do not believe the truth, the operation of error is sent; but many do not believe the truth because the operation of error is sent. Perhaps they simply have to not believe the operation of error instead. This seems to harmonize with the 'reversal' occasioned by the book of life).
One may believe or disbelieve the Faith on faith alone, without 'confirmations' . If it were confirmed, it would not be faith anymore; it would enter the historical record as a plain fact. But that is not how it works.
It is another thing to believe the contradiction of the Faith on faith alone; this really would be an anti-Faith: A hope that the Faith turns out to be either not true or overcome. It is not certain this actually exists.
It is yet another to believe the contradiction of the Faith with confirmations (signs and wonders). That, too, would no longer be faith. As the 'operation of error' works to establish error as fact, so also does the antichrist seek to establish himself as fact.
So those who believe the contradiction and antithesis of the Faith as fact, rather confirm the actual Faith as faith although in opposition to it. (Similar to how the Church is still visible despite the usurpation of Vatican '2' due to its opposition by sedevacantists, who can still point to the true Church by identifying its false counterpart).
If the Faith were 'confirmed', it would not be faith anymore; conversely, if an 'anti-faith' were not thus 'confirmed'...it appears nothing would happen.
(As a rough analogy, of the Faith 'confirmed' in a sense by its opposition, if a first
person was promised a free lunch by a second person for the next day,
and a third person came the next morning and said 'but that person who made that promise died
yesterday' and offered proofs, which were photoshopped, then it would be
seen that the third person did not want the first person to benefit
from the free lunch offered by the second. This would cause the first
person to not keep the appointment, especially if he did not investigate
the veracity of the third's claim. But the thing is, normally one would have no reason to undertake such an investigation).
To sum up: If
the Faith were confirmed by wonders all can see, then to contradict it
one would have to disbelieve the evidence. If the antithesis of the
Faith were confirmed by wonders all can see, then to contradict it one
would have to disbelieve the evidence. But in the latter case, it can be
done only by Faith. In the former case, one would do it only by an anti-Faith, so to speak.
95. This part is debatable and we will have to see how it goes. Many who did not believe the truth will believe the antichrist because they will not anymore be able to see the contradiction (having trained in untruth); but afterwards the antichrist may actually re-establish the truth on many things; and people on both sides may believe him depending on internal things that no one can really predict. So this is another angle on which no further speculation is realistic.
95A. The example of doubting Thomas is not quite what we mean; he doubted until he touched Christ's Wounds, and was then duly convinced it was indeed He; but what if one remained unconvinced after seeing Him Resurrected ? That is the 'greatest intellectual sin' which is equivalent to believing the antichrist is 'true pope and true Christ', as it were, together with all of the accompanying contradictions, in full view of the world.
96. We think it is not by accident that The Lord Of The Rings
is, per capita (year by year), compared to any other, the most widely
known work of fiction in the history of the world (read, translated,
printed). The well-known movies have also increased its reach. This is
possibly so that this metaphor can be made so that many may understand
what the unsealing of the book of life means, not only for themselves
but also their forebears.
No comments:
Post a Comment
--