Taylor Swift shilling for the PTB?

Maybe the character of the musicians themselves and/or what they are channeling is somehow sensed by people and that can have a lot to do with how we experience a piece of music?

I absolutely think so. Even the current state of mind of an artist while he sings or plays gets transmitted to those who listen, whether live or in recorded form. I think a different level of reality can shine through music, for better or worse.
 
The following video takes a look at the experience of many who claim to have little memory of attending her actual concerts.

That's curious! Makes me wonder about those who claim to have memory distortions or concert amnesia. Who are they, what are the commonalities aside from an obsession with Taylor Switch, and so on.

It seems, judging by the samples provided in the video, likely that those who experience the amnesia are among the most hardcore of fans. They're also likely to be among the most suggestible and hypnotizable of the crowd. Put the two together and one can imagine these people are also likely to be lefty types whose brain has turned to mush by THE MESSAGE and the various other Matrix lies.

So it's little wonder how seeing TS can become the highlight of such a person's life. Though maybe this in itself isn't enough to explain the phenomena.

As if they're SO dissociated and enthralled that they lose a part of their waking awareness of the show itself. And realize this later on.

This seems like the most reasonable explanation. How did they get to that point? Well, I think we can guess.

On one fairly mundane hand, this form of hypnosis has been well explained before in the documentary about evangelist Marjoe some years ago. But on another, and as the commentator suggests, there may be some imagery in her videos, and other subliminals (as well as some in-your-face things), that have induced entrancement on, perhaps, a whole other level.

I watched the Eras Tour movie (at double speed and skipping much but making sure there wasn't anything I might've missed that would be important) and saw a whopping one scene with a CGI snake (a quick intro to the album Reputation portion of the show), one scene with a checkerboard floor, and one scene where TS had a cloak and was kinda like a witch for about 30 seconds. Nothing like the video presenter was suggesting in terms of it being a Satanic ritual or mass hypnosis in a directed sense. Whatever evil or Satanic stuff might be in her videos, it wasn't shown on the tour. Not that I could tell anyways. Which, admittedly, is possibly the version of the tour least likely to show anything malicious were something malicious going on.

With that additional bit of info about the tour itself, I think what can be gleaned from Marjoe's experience, what can be deduced from those who are affected, as well as what others have written regarding their emotional experience at the concert I think we have enough to piece together why so many people seem to be having amnesia at TS' concerts.

They're suggestible and dissociated people having a religious experience invoked and involving the audience as much as TS herself. At least, that's my best guess.
 
My main point is, what I am seeing is that music itself has been used as a way to divide and conquer people, acting on generational (and racial) levels mostly (I'm talking about the USA mostly here; I'm aware this musical stratification doesn't occur in every country).
I think it's a bit of both: genuine music that contributes to the creation of culture (primary), and 'controlled shaping' via various means, mostly commercial (secondary). Luc put it really well:

Yeah, I don't really buy the whole "all music of the 60s/whenever was programming" narrative. I also don't buy the "white men stole black music" stuff, or that *everything* is stage-managed... There are elements of truth in there of course, but overall, I judge music on its merits and how it speaks to my soul, no matter when it was made or where the artists took their inspiration from, or who their manager was (well the personality and character of the artist is a factor for me too). But one thing is true, and the Cs' answer seems spot-on here IMO: the 70s were when the dedicated effort to completely control the "mainstream airwaves" kicked into high gear. Notice however that according to the Cs, even by the 1990s not *all* "airplay" music contained corrupting messages. So, it comes back to our own responsibility and soul-perception; no narrative that sorts artists into good and evil can replace that.
One thing I think we need to remember about Dave McGowan's whole Laurel Canyon schtick is that Dave McGowan is also the guy who wrote a series about how the moon landings were faked. Some people just go overboard with the conspiracy stuff. Sometimes there's no satanic mind control; it's just a talented person pumping out catchy tunes that a bunch of millionaires decided to make as big as they possibly could for their own empire-building reasons.

But on the subject of 'satanic' activity and 'witches', the following reference that Laura made in her article Witches, Comets and Planetary Cataclysms springs to mind:

Laura said:
In his article, "Sexy Devils", Dale Keiger writes:
[..] These guys are trying to construct proofs that demons exist, he thought. They're trying to convince skeptics. And then he thought they're trying to convince themselves.

Stephens' thesis profoundly revises the conventional wisdom about centuries of cruelty and injustice. The great European witch hunts, he says, were the outgrowth of a severe crisis of faith. The men who wrote books like the Malleus, men who endorsed the torture and burning of tens of thousands of innocent people, desperately needed to believe in witches, because if witches were real, then demons were real, and if demons were real, then God was real. Not just real but present and attentive. Carefully read the works composed by the witchcraft authors, Stephens says, and you will see how profoundly disturbed these educated, literate men were by their accumulating suspicions that if God existed at all, He wasn't paying much attention to the descendants of Adam.
Given the sophisticated psychopathic-materialistic mindwar on religion, especially Christianity, is it any wonder that some mainstream Christians might be desperately looking for a way to stave off an impending crisis of faith, thus we get all kinds of conspiratorial accusations levelled against celebrities who, while certainly not embodying the highest of virtues, are obviously innocent of other motivations?
 
I watched a Taylor documentary a few weeks ago, and it what struck me about her music was not so much that she writes it all herself, but that she manages to convince her followers that the same three chords (almost exclusively F, C, and G, which can effectively be played by moving a single finger from string to string all on the third fret: the Hot Crossed Buns of guitar wizardry) combined with a different catchphrase equal a dozen distinct and individual compositions. For a pianist, it’s basically the C, Dm, Em, F (all white key triads) of song creation. How many ways can we repurpose Heart and Soul?
Not sure it's fair to criticize TS based solely on her repeated use of the same 3 - 4 chords, as I'd estimate over 90% of popular music (good and bad), in some sense, relies on the same relative chord structure which lies at the foundation of western music.

The central "key" that a song is written in is called the "root" chord. The two chords that naturally "fit, or sound good" in that key are called the 4th and the 5th chords (which are 4 and 5 steps away form the root note on the piano). There is also a "relative minor" belonging to each key, which we would find on the 6th note.

So, in the key of C - the F chord is the 4th and the G chord is the 5th, with Am being the relative minor.

But if you start in the key of G - the C chord is the 4th and the D chord is the 5th, and Em being the minor.

In that sense, you can play almost any song in any key as long as you know the root and it's relative 4ths and 5ths.

Heart and Soul is a good example of following a Root - Minor - 4th - 5th progression (C - Am - F - G), which is shared by other popular 50's Do-Wop songs like "Dream and Little Dream of Me" by the Everly Brothers, Earth Angel, Blue Moon, Stand By Me, etc.

The 12 Bar blues progression is another good example of how the exact same chord progression can be crafted into a myriad of different songs, each one unique and interesting in itself, but based on the same overall pattern.

It most often looks something like this - Root (4 bars) - 4th (2 Bars) - Root (2 Bars) - 5th (1 Bar) - 4th (1 Bar) - Root (2 Bars)

And can be found is such Classics as "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Hailey and the Comets, "Tutti Frutti" by Little Richard, "Hound Dog" by Elvis and "Travelling Band" by CCR. The Beatles themselves recorded over 25 different songs (some originals, some covers) using this 12-Bar Blues pattern or a slight variation thereof.

Hopefully, all the non-musicians out there can forgive me for delving a little into musical theory. I brought it up to illustrate that it is not necessarily simplicity or using familiar well-worn chord progressions that makes a song boring or superficial. At the same time, music that is more complex using uncommon or unrelated chords and unique patterns is not necessarily better or more interesting.

I like to think of popular music kind of like a chessboard, where there can be an infinite amount variety within a finite space. Where a chessboard is confined to 64 squares, no two chess games are played out exactly the same. And using a traditional 3 chord (root, 4th, 5th) in different combinations, there can be amost endless variety within as evidenced by how many widely different popular songs have been made using only this formula.

For me, a really good song consists of a perfect marriage of chord progression, melody line and lyrical content, and although it's rare that a song contains all three in equal degrees, it does seem that certain songs that "stand the test of time" are well-represented in these three aspects. From what little of her music I've heard, TS seems rather mediocre in all three areas.

So, I agree as others have said, what differentiates the music of TS from other older classic pop music is, for want of a better term, the lack of heart and soul. Taylor Swift herself (and by extension her music) is a "product" of the music industry, made for mass consumption, like a plastic piece of fruit wrapped in cellophane, that looks fresh and shiny but whose beauty is mostly fake and superficial.

If popular music is a "reflection" of the times people are living in, then the music of Taylor Swift is perfect mirror of life on 21st century planet earth.

Not only that - I mean, there's many songs with 3 chords that are awesome, so it's not just complexity that is missing. In fact, the Cs advised once to keep it "simple and beautiful" when making music together (though in a different context).

I think what's missing is artists who are in touch with their souls, and with reality. This is the precondition to writing lyrics (and music!) that can actually touch those with half a soul still firing, expressing a deeper truth. The rest is "just" talent, hard work etc., but without the foundation, what can you do?

Yes, this is a better version of what I was trying to say!
 
Last edited:
Given the sophisticated psychopathic-materialistic mindwar on religion, especially Christianity, is it any wonder that some mainstream Christians might be desperately looking for a way to stave off an impending crisis of faith, thus we get all kinds of conspiratorial accusations levelled against celebrities who, while certainly not embodying the highest of virtues, are obviously innocent of other motivations?
I don't see many attacks on the materialistic types of Christianity we have in the West. I see attacks on objective spiritual teachings in the Christian faith, which are uncommon in many churches today. The Catholic Church is not being attacked by officialdom and is part of the PTB it seems. The churches have been fooled and have taken an entropic, STS path. Nevertheless, any hint of truth or real spirituality that remains in churches is subject to STS attack. When real truths are lost, religions become cultlike. Church members become narcissistic, they tend to cast out anything and anyone as 'unbelievers' who deviate from their dogma in the slightest.

I think one has to look at each artist individually to determine how much the artist knows about what's going on. Those more in the know and more willing are probably used as 'handlers' for those artists who think they are just playing a game with the industry.
 
I don’t know much of TS’s music, what little I’ve heard I don’t much care for at all.

I think what's missing is artists who are in touch with their souls, and with reality. This is the precondition to writing lyrics (and music!) that can actually touch those with half a soul still firing, expressing a deeper truth.
I agree that there is no soul in virtually all the arts, not just music. This loss of soul, of beauty in art, music & even in architecture, makes so much sense in light of McGilchrist’s hemisphere hypothesis. McGilchrist suggests that the shift towards the left hemisphere results in a loss of melody and harmony, which is replaced by simple rhythm.

The Master and his Emissary said:
Music is, of all the arts, the one that is most dependent on the right hemisphere; of all aspects of music, only rhythm is appreciated as much by the left hemisphere, and it may not be accidental that, while contemporary art music has become the preserve of a few devotees (in a way that was never previously true of new music in its time), popular music in our age has become dominated by, and almost reduced to, rhythm and little else.
 
I think what's missing is artists who are in touch with their souls, and with reality. This is the precondition to writing lyrics (and music!) that can actually touch those with half a soul still firing, expressing a deeper truth. The rest is "just" talent, hard work etc., but without the foundation, what can you do?

I am open to admit there was *maybe* an authentic expression of artistry and true connection coming from TS and others at the start of their careers. I guess it makes it easier for when the commitee of producers and execs come in and take over. What happens next is well known, the artist gets compromised and gives in. This can take many forms, I guess, it could be they become overly sexualized, scandalous, erratic or whatever. And one begins to think if they were transmitting something truthful at all or part of a plan all along.

I mean, what to expect from artists who believe Biden is awesome, get your vax, electric cars save the climate, gender fluidity is cool, etc. etc.? Not that you need to check all boxes of "correct opinion" to be a great artist, and obviously many greats in the past weren't exactly well-informed. But then, the level of programming wasn't so crazy back then either. But if you believe so many disastrous lies, a tipping point is reached eventually where you are "cut off" from the well of true creativity so to speak.

Yeah, my sense as well. I guess the stakes are higher now, and part of the deal is to become an obedient robot, or else they will cut off the fame they all seem to crave.

Now, I found this interesting exchange:

13 September 2009

Q: (Joe) True. (Scott) I wonder if that's why there are certain bands where the people totally can't sing, but everyone thinks they're great - I mean, above and beyond marketing and all that kind of stuff?

A: Yes! And some of them activate "interesting" frequencies!

Q:
(L) When you say "interesting", what does that mean?

A: Shall we say that it is planned and deliberate for nefarious purposes.

Q: (Joe) What music were you thinking about, Scottie? (Scottie) I was just thinking after our talk the other day about objectively and subjectively good music and everything. I was thinking about some of the popular music, like pretty much everything... Like my workout music, grunge music, electric guitar music, rap music - all these different types of popular music. And some of it is actually done by somebody who can't even sing at all and people just absolutely love it. So there are all these different genres where some bands become popular, whereas you can go to a bar and here's somebody singing a song and they're ten times better, but... (L) But they're not famous. (Scottie) So why do these people who have absolutely no talent become famous, beyond the fact that they were "discovered", or advertising, etc...

A: Laurel Canyon anyone?

Q: (laughter) (Keit) We were just talking about it today! (Joe) Yeah, they were all picked. (C**) So would Laura's voice be kind of what Gurdjieff called "objective music"?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) I've got a great name for your album: Laura Canyon! (laughter) (L) I think I'll pass on that one. Unless you want to put an echo in so it sounds like I'm singing across the canyon. (PL) So, those bands in Laurel Canyon, those singers like the Mamas and the Papas, those bands that were obviously sponsored, because, through their music, they could put a kind of spell on some listeners, manipulate them, generate some negative emotions...?

A: "Spellbinders."

Q:
(Keit) Maybe you can ask about movies? (L) What about movies? (Keit) We were talking about Laurel Canyon in relation to movies, and we see this same effect. (L) Did Laurel Canyon do movies? (Keit) Because it has that lab. (Allen) Oh, it has that CIA lab at the top of Laurel Canyon. (DD) Which is the spook lab. The spook's cinema lab. (Allen) It's all part of that same thing. (PL) They did some horror movies.

A: Yes. All part of the same programs.

Q: (PL) Does it generate just general negative emotions in listeners, or is it more specific nefarious purposes?

A: More specific...

Q: (Joe) Dissociation. (PL) To trigger some kind of programmed murderers or stuff like that?

A: In some cases. Like an audible "Catcher in the Rye."

Q:
(C**) What's Catcher in the Rye? (Allen) Catcher in the Rye was the book that the guy who shot John Lennon had in his hands when he shot him. (L) Yeah? (Joe) Sirhan Sirhan. (L) And also the guy that shot John Lennon. (DD) It's supposedly a kind of MKULTRA trigger thing.

A: Many triggers for many programs. Now you have the means to cancel much of this.

Q: (L) What do you mean "means to cancel much of this"? (PL) Counter-music. A counter-signal. (L) You mean it's gonna be the Battle of the Bands?! (laughter)

A: You got it! On a cosmic level too!

Q: (L) I think it's strange. (PL) One of the triggers is for murderers. But they say it's one of the specific nefarious purposes. Are there examples of other specific nefarious purposes? Can they trigger suicide in people?

A:
Yes

Q: (Joe) General association among young people, ya know what I mean? Turn their brains into... (Keit) Like psychopathy, and violent... (Allen) I don't think it has to be that serious. It's part of the frequency fence, the music...

A: Frequency fence! [spelling at the same time Allen is speaking)
 
“A: In some cases. Like an audible "Catcher in the Rye."

Q:
(C**)…. It's supposedly a kind of MKULTRA trigger thing.

A: Many triggers for many programs. Now you have the means to cancel much of this”.

This made me recall that for decades they had kids in school read this, which makes little sense. Both hilarious and pathetic, it was a one shot book from a mostly unknown author. It was not a masterwork of great literature. Salinger has no body of work really other than this one book to recommend him (assuming Salinger was real and this was not a “project”)

I have tended to think of “Catcher” in the programming of isolated, individual nut-job cases only. But this has been mass disseminated for generations (!) which is def worth 4.5 Spock eyebrows. Everyone who has grown up in the US in the past 75 years has had this seed implanted at an impressionable age!
 
This article brings up some interesting points re: manipulation of the human mind through mass media and the setting of the stage.


The main points:

"The invention of the proscenium ( Proscenium - Wikipedia ) created a separation between the acting area and the auditorium, with the psychological effect of making the audience feel unthreatened by the scene unfolding before them. Feeling safe from the activity in the acting area, audiences let their psychological defenses down and become passive observers of the world created within the frame.

In the “safe zone” of the auditorium, the audience is shown characters acting and reacting to various situations, with the attendant consequences. When characters behave “correctly,” they are rewarded with accolades and adulation, and when they behave “badly,” they are punished with tragic outcomes and scorn. In this way, audiences are taught what is permissible behavior, and are shown graphic depictions of what happens when they don’t follow the social norms.

Being psychologically removed from the scene, the audience relaxes and focuses on “the message,” rather than constantly assessing threats and anticipating responses. Instead, they internalize the scene and file it away for future reference. They empathize with the main characters and vicariously “feel” the rewards and punishments meted out in the course of the scene."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Modern films and shows have violated a cardinal rule of the proscenium — the fourth wall — which is the imaginary wall of the arch that separates the audience from the scene. With the ham-fisted “inclusion” and “diversity,” the sense of “reality” is lost. Furthermore, when the characters begin lecturing on “good behavior” and “right think,” the fourth wall is pierced and the audience no longer feels safe. The scene has spilled into the auditorium and the audience immediately raises shields. They are no longer safely observing the scene from a distance, but are now pulled into it, with all the attendant psychological threats."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Back when I went to see concerts, I simply went to be entertained. Today, many artists seem to be doing all they can to make their shows immersive experiences for their audiences, making them a part of the show instead of merely performing. I think Radio Far Side does a good job defining part of the problem and explaining some of the results of breaching that "fourth wall".
 
Not sure it's fair to criticize TS based solely on her repeated use of the same 3 - 4 chords, as I'd estimate over 90% of popular music (good and bad), in some sense, relies on the same relative chord structure which lies at the foundation of western music.

The central "key" that a song is written in is called the "root" chord. The two chords that naturally "fit, or sound good" in that key are called the 4th and the 5th chords (which are 4 and 5 steps away form the root note on the piano). There is also a "relative minor" belonging to each key, which we would find on the 6th note.

So, in the key of C - the F chord is the 4th and the G chord is the 5th, with Am being the relative minor.

But if you start in the key of G - the C chord is the 4th and the D chord is the 5th, and Em being the minor.

In that sense, you can play almost any song in any key as long as you know the root and it's relative 4ths and 5ths.

Heart and Soul is a good example of following a Root - Minor - 4th - 5th progression (C - Am - F - G), which is shared by other popular 50's Do-Wop songs like "Dream and Little Dream of Me" by the Everly Brothers, Earth Angel, Blue Moon, Stand By Me, etc.

The 12 Bar blues progression is another good example of how the exact same chord progression can be crafted into a myriad of different songs, each one unique and interesting in itself, but based on the same overall pattern.

It most often looks something like this - Root (4 bars) - 4th (2 Bars) - Root (2 Bars) - 5th (1 Bar) - 4th (1 Bar) - Root (2 Bars)

And can be found is such Classics as "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Hailey and the Comets, "Tutti Frutti" by Little Richard, "Hound Dog" by Elvis and "Travelling Band" by CCR. The Beatles themselves recorded over 25 different songs (some originals, some covers) using this 12-Bar Blues pattern or a slight variation thereof.

Hopefully, all the non-musicians out there can forgive me for delving a little into musical theory. I brought it up to illustrate that it is not necessarily simplicity or using familiar well-worn chord progressions that makes a song boring or superficial. At the same time, music that is more complex using uncommon or unrelated chords and unique patterns is not necessarily better or more interesting.

I like to think of popular music kind of like a chessboard, where there can be an infinite amount variety within a finite space. Where a chessboard is confined to 64 squares, no two chess games are played out exactly the same. And using a traditional 3 chord (root, 4th, 5th) in different combinations, there can be amost endless variety within as evidenced by how many widely different popular songs have been made using only this formula.

For me, a really good song consists of a perfect marriage of chord progression, melody line and lyrical content, and although it's rare that a song contains all three in equal degrees, it does seem that certain songs that "stand the test of time" are well-represented in these three aspects. From what little of her music I've heard, TS seems rather mediocre in all three areas.

So, I agree as others have said, what differentiates the music of TS from other older classic pop music is, for want of a better term, the lack of heart and soul. Taylor Swift herself (and by extension her music) is a "product" of the music industry, made for mass consumption, like a plastic piece of fruit wrapped in cellophane, that looks fresh and shiny but whose beauty is mostly fake and superficial.

If popular music is a "reflection" of the times people are living in, then the music of Taylor Swift is perfect mirror of life on 21st century planet earth.



Yes, this is a better version of what I was trying to say!
Um, my dad was a classically trained pianist who started me on formal lessons when I was 6. I was a working musician for nearly 40 years. I think you may have missed my larger point, but hopefully my other posts in the thread have helped.

Incidentally, I took History of Rock Music class for an easy credit in college, and what you wrote was nearly identical to the first 3 weeks of what the teacher explained the class. You could write a textbook for that class! Not joking. You explained it very clearly.😀
 
I am open to admit there was *maybe* an authentic expression of artistry and true connection coming from TS and others at the start of their careers. I guess it makes it easier for when the commitee of producers and execs come in and take over. What happens next is well known, the artist gets compromised and gives in. This can take many forms, I guess, it could be they become overly sexualized, scandalous, erratic or whatever. And one begins to think if they were transmitting something truthful at all or part of a plan all along.



Yeah, my sense as well. I guess the stakes are higher now, and part of the deal is to become an obedient robot, or else they will cut off the fame they all seem to crave.

Now, I found this interesting exchange:

13 September 2009
The exchange from the session is interesting because that's something I've noticed too. There are people obviously can't sing but are pushed to the forefront and loved by the mass. A good example of this imo atm is Olivia Rodrigo and Billie Eillish. i've watched clips of both singing live and it was painful. I could never finish any of the former's songs, and the latter always makes me want to yell "stop whispering and please sing with your full voice". Same for actors or other artists. What I've noticed too is that compared to the past, celebrities imo are a lot less good-looking and charismatic which is surprising considering in term of makeup, hair, and other tools the world has improved. If you look at current IT actors/ actress/ celebrities, they're a league below what we had in previous generations (though I dont deny that some are ultra talented) but surprisingly no one seems to pick up on this fact.

The part about everybody having a program is interesting because something I've noticed is that the vast majority of people do not care about things that they should really care about such. A big example of this is health. Living in UK, the level of chronic illness, mental illness and mental disorders (the last one especially in children, teens and young adult) has tremendously increased, but no one seems to care even though if society doesn't collapse, it will have a massive economic and societal impact with lots of people requiring care for life. Now I'm wondering if it's because alongside personality, many are made to "sleep" through the media they consume.
 
Maybe the character of the musicians themselves and/or what they are channeling is somehow sensed by people and that can have a lot to do with how we experience a piece of music?
I absolutely think so. Even the current state of mind of an artist while he sings or plays gets transmitted to those who listen, whether live or in recorded form. I think a different level of reality can shine through music, for better or worse.

Just exploring this a bit more. I'm thinking of many different instances where I've had rather profound experiences with music only to find out later that the artist is actually an idiot. One example would be Radiohead, who I think have some truly excellent music, yet they support Extinction Rebellion :rolleyes: I've often thought that a true artist has the ability to channel something higher, some level of universal truth, without inserting an excessive amount of their own personal and subjective sh*t; like they're actually able to step aside and let something beautiful come through. There are so many examples of rather terrible people creating great art and the only explanation I can come up with is that they're actually able to access something higher or objective in human experience and are conveying that without excessive subjective corruption (probably to varying degrees).

Probably because of the music I listened to growing up, I tend to respond much more to music itself rather than lyrics (although not always). I often find lyrics to be disappointing, TBH. Like I'll connect with a song at a musical level and when I start paying attention to the lyrics they just come across as self-indulgent, crass or just plain stupid. It's like the music itself is touching on something profound, but the artist then dumps a bunch of subjective junk on it; like corrupting the channel, to a certain extent. I'm sure this is also a technique for programming; deliberately tacking a bunch of negative 'stuff' onto a positive source.
 
The Catholic Church is not being attacked by officialdom and is part of the PTB it seems.
Minor point-there is also a lively battle going on within the Catholic Church between Latin Mass with Gregorian Chant traditionalism and Vatican2 Pope Francis new age Catholicism. (Which is the PTB part) The outspoken critic of Francis and face of traditionalism, Viganò, is being tried for Schism. I guess a parallel to TS is that church music has become a mostly soulless bore like Swift.
 
Back
Top Bottom