Saturday, August 10, 2013

Eric Nelson & Hebrew Sources That Influenced Modernity

I've been discussing, of late, the notion that the concept of "republicanism" is contained in the Bible, specifically the Old Testament. I'm sorry, but perhaps I'm too much of a literalist in the way I read texts; but I don't "see" the concept there. For one, the Bible never uses the term "republicanism" or "republic" to describe the form of government of Ancient Israel.

Ancient Israel had a theocracy, not a "republic" and the form of government the Bible seems to speak of as most normative is monarchy.  Not just normative in an "is" sense, but in an "ought" sense as well; the Bible speaks of a "Kingdom," not a "Republic" of Heaven where Jesus' Kingdom is not of this Earth.

The concept of republicanism actually derives from the Greco-Roman tradition.

But that didn't stop many "key figures" from the "key era" that ushered in modernity (the 16th - 18th centuries) from arguing the Bible -- specifically the Old Testament -- to claim republicanism against monarchy.

Of actual, respectable and respected modern scholars, Eric Nelson of Harvard does cutting edge work demonstrating the influence of Hebrew thought on the concept of modern republicanism.

I use the terms respectable and respected because there is a cohort of Christian nationalists non-scholars who misunderstand and misuse many of these same sources in the record that demonstrate the influence of Hebraic thought on modern republicanism. They cite these sources to argue as though there was some golden age of Christianism in need of recapture. (Real scholars understand there wasn't.)

What Eric Nelson argues is modernism -- not in the radical sense, but in the ordinary, present bourgeois sense -- owes more to the understanding of Hebraic thought by the those who established modern republicanism (those British thinkers who influenced America's Founders like Sidney, Milton, Harrington and others) than a secular Enlightenment.

That is, it's not a mythic golden age we need to return to, but today's era of 1. regulated, managed capitalism that redistributes wealth when there are excesses, 2. popular sovereignty, and 3. religious toleration in which we currently live that is the result of the Hebrew Republic.

And yes, government bureaucrats who are elected democratically, get to decide how much wealth is too much. This is not Marxist egalitarianism that demands perfect equality according to need. But rather an egalitarianism more Rawlsian that accepts a need for some inequality for the system to function efficiently; but understands law and policy should step in and redistribute wealth for a more "just distribution."

Except these sources predate Rawls. You don't need continental Europeans Rousseau and then Marx to understand Egalitarianism's call for a kinder gentler distribution of wealth. You have James Harrington, a man who, unlike Rousseau, was greatly respected by America's Founders.

Now, I don't think Harrington's notion of "civic republicanism" prevailed among America's Founders. Though it did seriously influence them. As Bernard Bailyn noted there were five chief sources of thought that drove America's Founding: 1. Biblical; 2. Common Law; 3. Whig; 4. Enlightenment; and 5. Greco-Roman. To complicated matters further, a. these sources were not mutually exclusive; that is, they bled into one another; and b. they competed and conflicted with one another; that is, they often disagreed.

And, of course, this is just one paradigm where others might be valid.

I see America's Founding as more individualistically liberal than collectivistically republican. In short, Locke and Smith's more individualistic economic vision -- mainly because of James Madison --  prevailed over Harrington's more egalitarian economic vision.

But egalitarian's critique of the excesses of individualism exists in the ideological thought of the American Founding. And the egalitarianism thinker who most influenced America's Founders -- James Harrington -- used Hebraic sources to argue for his notion of a more "just distribution" as Rawls would later put it.

I learned that, and many other things, from Eric Nelson. Check out his book.

37 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

I've been discussing, of late, the notion that the concept of "republicanism" is contained in the Bible, specifically the Old Testament. I'm sorry, but perhaps I'm too much of a literalist in the way I read texts; but I don't "see" the concept there. For one, the Bible never uses the term "republicanism" or "republic" to describe the form of government of Ancient Israel.

The question is never what the Bible says, it's what they thought the Bibles says. The same is true of Locke: not what Locke "really" thought, but how they understood and used his writings.

But egalitarian's critique of the excesses of individualism exists in the ideological thought of the American Founding. And the egalitarianism thinker who most influenced America's Founders -- James Harrington -- used Hebraic sources to argue for his notion of a more "just distribution" as Rawls would later put it.


And I don't see this "distributivist" streak in the Founding except for the English Levellers and proto-socialists Bill Hoagland is always pumping.

http://williamhogeland.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/class-finance-and-the-american-founding-a-talk/

The stronger critique is Barry Alan Shain's

The Myth of American Individualism. The Protestant Origins of American Political Thought

which argues the critique was a communitarian one, not an egalitarian one.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=418

In The Myth of American Individualism, Barry Alan Shain has furnished some provocative answers. Reviewing a vast and impressive literature, Shain simultaneously debunks both the Lockean liberal and civic republican theses.

With the revisionists, Shain bears witness to the communal character of the founding era. In contrast to the civic view, however, he finds that Americans willfully gave themselves not to a spirited public life, but to the spirit of the Lord that dwelled within the breast of each believer.

The republican tradition “insisted that full human development was only achievable through direct political participation.” But Protestant America “did not understand political life as having intrinsic worth or as defining the sole path toward full human development.”

As “a largely Christian and over-whelmingly rural people, Americans…understood politics as instrumental in the service of higher religious and other publicly defined goals.” Their conception of liberty (which Shain denotes “English political liberty”) “emphasized the instrumental rather than the intrinsic value of political life.” This emphasis bespeaks their abiding confidence in the Protestant path of human development marked out by “faith,” “allegiance to family,” “dependence on God’s love and his freely given grace,” and most important, “brotherly [or] communal oversight” (pp. 272, 275–76). This last feature signified a commitment to “an intrusive form of politics,” one that left little room for individual autonomy and self-assertion—hence the “myth” of American individualism.






wsforten said...

the form of government the Bible seems to speak of as most normative is monarchy. Not just normative in an "is" sense, but in an "ought" sense as well

This is incorrect. The Bible specifically states that God did not intend for Israel to have a monarchy.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"This is incorrect. The Bible specifically states that God did not intend for Israel to have a monarchy."

Nope. Your assertion is an inapt 1/2 truth that does not detract from the truth of my assertion.

wsforten said...

Perhaps I should have quoted the Scriptures in support of my statement. I Samuel 8:7-9 states:

And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

This plainly indicates that God did not intend for the nation of Israel to establish a monarchy.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Sorry, but the Bible says Israel had a monarchy with GOD AS THEIR KING.

As 1 Samuel 8 ACTUALLY says:

"6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king." [Bold mine.]

This was a simply a warning by God that an earthy regime would be inferior than His Kingship over them, not rejection of monarchy as a valid form of government.

Likewise, whatever form of government we might term the pre 1 Samuel 8 (it's a peculiar kind of theocracy where God Himself is directly giving revelation to the rulers), arguably it is something utterly context specific to that particular time and place and not any kind of government with general applicability.

Monarchy has far more general applicability in the Bible as an institution of government that God respects, endorses and uses.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Monarchy has far more general applicability in the Bible as an institution of government that God respects, endorses and uses.

Not so. As Thomas Paine argues in Common Sense, in 1 Sam 8 God warns Israel that kings suck.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-paines-common-sense-as-heard-by.html

As well as a VERY long account from 1 Samuel 8 of how the king will take their sons for war and their daughters for servitude, and take a tenth of everything and

"...your fields and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shell have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY."


All in all, a convincing argument against monarchy, not only Biblical but reality, a reality that's just dawned on the colonists...


Again, it's not what the Bible "says," but what the colonists believe it says.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"And I don't see this 'distributivist' streak in the Founding except for the English Levellers and proto-socialists Bill Hoagland is always pumping."

I don't know much about the Leveller's but this streak is there is Harrington.

Though, as noted, though he influenced, Harrington and the more collectivist "civic republicans" didn't prevail.

Shain's is an interesting thesis. But I don't buy it. I'll stick with Bailyn's paradigm over Shain's.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"Again, it's not what the Bible 'says,' but what the colonists believe it says."

Well Mr. Fortenberry and I were discussing what the Bible actually says, not what the Whig propagandists got the colonists to believe about what the Bible says.

In terms of what the Bible actually says, this is a true statement:

"Monarchy has far more general applicability in the Bible as an institution of government that God respects, endorses and uses."

Jonathan Rowe said...

One patriotic preacher tried to sell the colonists on the notion that the Bible speaks of a "republic of Heaven." It does not. It speaks of a Kingdom of Heaven.

Tom Van Dyke said...

---"Again, it's not what the Bible 'says,' but what the colonists believe it says."

Well Mr. Fortenberry and I were discussing what the Bible actually says, not what the Whig propagandists got the colonists to believe about what the Bible says.


The let's be clear you're doing theology on a history blog, arguing the subjective where we strive for objectivity.

With 30,000 sects of Christianity, what the Bible "says" is a matter of extreme diversity.

In terms of what the Bible actually says, this is a true statement:

"Monarchy has far more general applicability in the Bible as an institution of government that God respects, endorses and uses."


Please show the Bible passages, then. Most of the kings in the Bible suck bigtime, and among the best even David is a murderer, and Great King Solomon permits idolatry. His kingdom collapses immediately on his death.

[In fact the only good one that comes to mind that the Bible speaks well of is the Persian Cyrus, who ends the Captivity and sends the Hebrews home at last to Judea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great_in_the_Bible

Jonathan Rowe said...

"The let's be clear you're doing theology on a history blog, arguing the subjective where we strive for objectivity."

That's your line Tom. I say we are doing interdisciplinary that includes history, religion, law, politics, and philosophy.

And Mr. Fortenberry with his, "this is what the bible actually says," with an interwoven subjective, reasoning/interpretation analysis that renders his remarks, in actuality, just one of 27,000 possible interpretations of the Bible seems to be doing chiefly theology on these threads.

Should we ban him for this?

As to your King question, see the next comment.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"Please show the Bible passages, then. Most of the kings in the Bible suck bigtime, and among the best even David is a murderer, and Great King Solomon permits idolatry. His kingdom collapses immediately on his death."

As I understand the Bible it doesn't exalt ANY form of government. But rather views it as a fallen institution. One that, ironically is God ordained ala Romans 13.

The Ancient Israelites had something particular to their time in circumstances where God was directly involved in ruling them through revelation. It was not a "republic"; I'm not sure what to call it. It was God as King ruling Israel through Moses and then judges.

Then the Israelites asked for a King and God let them have one with a warning. That itself amounts to an endorsement.

But, to move beyond to other examples, here's one that follows.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+16&version=NIV

-- The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.” --

God ends up choosing David to be King. The people do not "select" David as they might in a democratic republic.

Tom Van Dyke said...

That's your line Tom. I say we are doing interdisciplinary that includes history, religion, law, politics, and philosophy.

And Mr. Fortenberry with his, "this is what the bible actually says," with an interwoven subjective, reasoning/interpretation analysis that renders his remarks, in actuality, just one of 27,000 possible interpretations of the Bible seems to be doing chiefly theology on these threads.

Should we ban him for this?


We'd have to ban you for doing the same thing. At least Bill [and Gregg] actually believe the Bible is God's word and further actually have read the thing, not just the Cliffs Notes.

And I'm fine with the Cliffs Notes of The Bible if they're the same ones the Founders used--in fact I prefer that's exactly what we used, not arguments they didn't actually make.

That's for theology blogs, or "Confessing" historians, who seem to draw no line between God's word and their own. But above our poor pay grade here.

Tom Van Dyke said...

God ends up choosing David to be King. The people do not "select" David as they might in a democratic republic.

That's all jumbled. Israel asks God to appoint a king, ala Romans 13. Kings rule by divine appointment, not man's. That's why David kills the Hittite for killing Saul.

2 Samuel 1:13-16, "And David said to the young man who told him, "Where are you from?" And he answered, "I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite." 14Then David said to him, "How is it you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?" 15And David called one of the young men and said, "Go, cut him down." So he struck him and he died. 16And David said to him, "Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the Lord’s anointed.'"

The Bible does have its consistent internal logic. You just have to read the whole thing, not just parts.

I'm not big on the Hebrew republic bit, but if that's what the Founders believed, then that's what it was.

Just like your new riff on Harrington the socialist, you have to show where the Founders spoke of it and acted on it. Otherwise, it's air.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Harrington the socialist? Now you are the one claiming an argument that someone didn't make. He was a wealth redistributionisit, which is something we currently do in America with the estate tax and progressive income tax. As to his influence J. Adams cited him as a key source. Though I admitted his economic vision didn't prevail among the founders.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Tom: you asked for an example of where the bible seems to endorse the concept of kingship and I gave it to you. I don't see how that's jumbled. I agree the bible can be read with an internal logic; government is an institution comprised of fallen men and hence it is bound to disappoint. Hence shitty kings and rulers. And yet it is a divinely ordained institution ala Romans 13. It takes synthesizing a number of verses and chapters to reach that conclusion.

wsforten said...

I'm somewhat confused about your overall argument here, Jon. Are you saying that John Adams, for example, was influenced by an erroneous understanding of the Scriptures, or are you saying that his view of government was not influenced by the Bible?

If the first, then it would seem that Tom is correct. You have admitted that you do not know which view of Scripture is correct. Therefore, the mere fact that Adams was influenced by any view of the Scriptures should be sufficient to establish the possibility that the form of government which he advocated was a Scriptural form of government. Your objection to this seems solely to be that the form of government Adams advocated does not agree with the view of Scripture that you think is correct, but that would imply that you actually know the correct interpretation of the Scriptures which would contradict your admission to know no such thing.

If your argument is that Adams' view of government, as our example, was not influenced by the Bible, then I am afraid that I am at a loss to understand why you began this thread in the first place.

I hope that you can help me out of this quandary.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Mr. F. Lol. I need not accept your false dichotomy as the paradigm under which I analyze these issue.

jimmiraybob said...

wsforten - "...the possibility that the form of government which he advocated was a Scriptural form of government."

This is near delusional and requires a willful ignorance of the vast amount of contrary evidence. Otherwise, ....

In other venues do you go by Our Founding Truth?

wsforten said...

You're right. That is a false dichotomy of a sort. I left out the third option that Adams was influenced by a correct understanding of the Scriptures.

wsforten said...

Jim,

Have you read the second book of Harrington's The Art of Lawgiving?

Jonathan Rowe said...

John Adams was a rationalist who had more confidence in what he saw as his divinely inspired reason than what the biblical canon which he thought of as inspired but errant actually said. If he though the ancient Hebrews had a republic, good for him. He also thought the incarnation stupified Christendom. No dillema for me. Sorry if I couldn't help Mr. F. out of his quandry.

jimmiraybob said...

Dude, have you read Adams?

jimmiraybob said...

wsforten - "...the possibility that the form of government which he advocated was a Scriptural form of government." and "Have you read the second book of Harrington's The Art of Lawgiving?"

wsforten,

You can clear this up simply by presenting direct evidence - a direct Adams' quote saying something along the lines of, "I advocate a Scriptural form of government" would be a good start. Otherwise, you show an impressive imagination.

jimmiraybob said...

And no fair quoting my inquisitive and speculative "I advocate a Scriptural form of government" as an actual Adams quote. Although, the audacity would be impressive.

wsforten said...

Well that's fairly easy to do, Jim. How about Adams' letter to Jefferson in which he wrote:

The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.

And before you respond with the standard objections to this quote, let me direct you to my answer to those objections in an article on my website entitled, Adams, Jefferson and the General Principles of Christianity.

Near the end of that article, I also list an additional quote from Adams' Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States in which he wrote:

It can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians.

Jonathan Rowe said...

JRB,

I think it would be a waste of time to engage Mr. F. on the "general principles" quotation which is Adams at his most heterodox.

It's a shame, Mr. F. does interesting and good research, but then poisons it (at least in my opinion) with his analysis.

He's not unlike those Afrocentric scholars who try to tie everything back to Africa. Mr. F. does the same thing with Plato that they do.

Anyway, I did learn something interesting from him about that letter. The cohort of men to which J. Adams referred were not from the revolutionary war era, but later. This makes sense in that he claims Priestlyans were members of that cohort and Priestley really didn't influence America in 1776, but not until later.

But that interesting fact doesn't detract from the utterly heterodox rationalistic context of the letter where he says among others Arians, Socinians, Priestlyans, Deists, Atheists, Protestants who believe in nothing, Rousseau and Voltaire all somehow support this kind of "Christianity."

It's a shame Mr. F. uses what he discovered that is of value in that letter as a red herring to distract from the actual heterodox context of Adams letter.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Blogger Jonathan Rowe said...
Tom: you asked for an example of where the bible seems to endorse the concept of kingship and I gave it to you.


Romans 13? One single verse, that can be interpreted differently, and WAS interpreted differently by the Founders?

Fine, but that's not grounds for a historical discussion. It's more like a sermon.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I was actually trying to synthesize more than just Romans 13, but the other verses and chapters that illustrate shitty tyrannical rulers with Romans 13 and 1 Samuel 16 where God chooses David to be King.

Tom Van Dyke said...

1 Samuel 16 where God chooses David to be King.

What does 1 Sam 16 prove? I'm simply not following your argument. Neither does the "Hebrew republic" thesis have anything to do with God's anointing of kings, except that it's a bad idea.

I'm not convinced by this Hebrew republic thesis, but again the historical question is whether the Founders believed in it. My own provisional take is that more than using the Bible as an instruction book, they always double-checked with the Bible, and if they found their notions were in agreement or at least not in conflict, it gave them better confidence in "the rectitude of their intentions."

Therefore, if they found a Hebrew republic in there, full speed ahead--including per Romans 13*!

[This is why Kraynak's argument is in essence a theological, not a historical one. Again, he's pumping what Robert Kraynak says the Bible says, to which I say, so what.]
_______
*Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Tom Van Dyke said...


http://page99test.blogspot.com/2010/04/eric-nelsons-hebrew-republic.html


As it happens, the “page 99 test” works pretty well in the case of The Hebrew Republic. The book challenges the conventional narrative that attributes the emergence of a recognizably “modern” kind of political thought to the phenomenon of “secularization”—the exclusion of religious arguments from political discourse. The Hebrew Republic argues, in contrast, that political thought in early-modern Europe became less, not more secular with time. In particular, it assigns a great deal of significance to the fact that, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Christians began to regard the Hebrew Bible as a political constitution, designed by God himself for the children of Israel. It accordingly became the central objective of political science in this period to replicate the divinely authorized Biblical constitution—and in pursuit of this objective, European Protestants became convinced (reluctantly in most cases) that they should turn for guidance to the full array of newly-available rabbinic materials. I argue that it was this encounter, rather than secularization, that yielded several of the most crucial elements of modern political thought.

jimmiraybob said...

I tell you what, now I'm enthusiastically looking forward to page 100:

"Page 99 of the book reproduces a remarkably explicit defense of this enterprise written by the great seventeenth-century political theorist Hugo Grotius. He is commenting on a famous passage in Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian whose works first suggested to Europeans that Biblical Israel could be regarded as a “politeia”—a political constitution in the Greek sense. If Josephus was right about this, a fundamental question had to be answered: namely, what sort of constitution did ancient Israel embody? Greek political science had identified three basic options: the rule of one man, the few, and the many (each having a correct and a degenerate form).

"But Josephus argued that the Greek philosophers, due to their ignorance of revelation, had omitted one further possibility: “theocracy” (Josephus coined the term), a regime in which God himself was the civil sovereign. This was the regime of ancient Israel. Grotius endorses Josephus’s position, and then draws a set of implications from it that would prove utterly transformative, both for Grotius himself and for the many theorists he influenced (among them Hobbes, Spinoza, and Locke)."

Note: I broke up the longer paragraph to make getting to the theocracy part easier.

jimmiraybob said...

TVD - "I argue that it was this encounter, rather than secularization, that yielded several of the most crucial elements of modern political thought."

Yes, and we're still trying to shake off the pesky theonomy/theocracy promoters and hucksters. Thank goodness that this was a failed political idea by the time that the founders and framers of the Constitution were setting political theory on parchment.

From a review at the Notre Dame Philosophical Review (1)

"In the third, final, and longest chapter of the book -- 'Hebrew Theocracy and the Rise of Toleration' -- Nelson argues that the imagined respublica Hebraeorum was a main source of inspiration for early modern supporters of religious toleration and Erastianism. This was the view associated with the Zwinglian Swiss theologian, Erastus (Thomas L├╝ber), who advocated, on religious grounds, that the civil magistrate is the only possible source of valid religious law. Nelson shows convincingly the repeated appeals by proponents of religious toleration to tolerant elements in Rabbinic law, such as the view that acceptance of Judaism is not "the only way to salvation" (i.e., that Gentiles also have a share in the world to come). Nelson also shows that Erastus himself considered the ancient Jewish state as a political model, maintaining that 'the Church is most worthily and wisely ordered, which cometh nearest to the constitution of the Jewish Church' (92)."


1) http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24488-the-hebrew-republic-jewish-sources-and-the-transformation-of-european-political-thought/

jimmiraybob said...

Hey, speaking of master hucksters, Glen Beck has a word or several to advance the notion that all of western civilization is based on the ancient Israelites - all of western civilization is based on the laws of Israel(1).

And, the 12 tribes went to the coast lines, you know, like our Pilgrims.

And, the Statue of Liberty is a representation of Moses (who woulda guessed the dominantly Catholic French to have been such Torah devotees). It's obvious, though, once you properly understand that she's carrying The Tablets and has a crown of God rays.

Everybody can have a theory but if it's on TV it must be true. It's almost as good as having an article at a website.

1) http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/08/12/beck-finds-the-lost-tribes-of-israel/#more-21748

Tom Van Dyke said...

TVD - "I argue that it was this encounter, rather than secularization, that yielded several of the most crucial elements of modern political thought."

FTR, this is Eric Nelson. I agree with the statement, but for natural law, not "Hebrew Republic" reasons.

But his is a fascinating thesis, and accounts for how Calvinist resistance theory came to be tempered by religious tolerance.

The Puritan Oliver Cromwell's England was pretty harsh, whereas Locke spent his exile in Grotius' Holland--where he wrote the famous and influential "A Letter Concerning Toleration."

waqas farooq said...

Free Promotion of your Website, Facebook Page, Twitter, Google Plus, StumbleUpon, Youtube Views Likes and Subscribes, Pinterest, MySpace, SoundCloud, Instagram and Much More Social Media Promotions. Just add your Promotion Link to this Website and Get Increase your Visitors, Page Likes, photo likes, photo shares Twitter Follow Tweets and Favorites, Youtube Views Likes and Subscribes and Much More.
GetLikeFast.com

saleem mohd. said...

Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited. Visit the Best Lol Network Ever, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Funny Vidoes, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures and Much More Fun and Entertainment
lolsgag.com