What do you think?
Rate this book
Nastik: Why I Am Not an Atheist Paperback
Nastik chronicles the transformative journey of a modern Indian sceptic who initially embraced Western neo-atheism. It begins with the protagonist’s disillusionment with religious dogma and his subsequent adoption of Western neo-atheism, characterized by a staunch denial of theism and a critique of religion’s influence on society. As the narrative unfolds, he encounters the rich tapestry of Indian philosophy. He discovers the nuanced perspectives of nastik schools of thought in Indian tradition, such as Charvaka,
- GenresNonfictionPhilosophy
200 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2024
17 people are currently reading
121 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
September 7, 2024
Nastik is an Indian take on Eastern religions as a whole but it trades the indigenous roots for the global perspective. It may be possible that the "Eastern" religion in practice is not well understood by the author either.
Let's start with the great: the book offers a good theological opposition to the Abrahamic religions; all of which are of Jewish origin. This "monopolized monotheism" and assumption that the Universal God is also one's personal God has been the most catastrophic assumption for humans.
The book even goes after Buddha's belief in the Varna system, although this may be reflective of his belief before sanyas.
The author, although, makes many errors in this itself. He confuses atheism, which is a belief, with Mimansa, which is a philosophy. This is comparing apples to oranges. The Mimansa is arguing philosophically that even if there is no greater Brahman, there should not be a lack of practice with a personal deity.
The book presents the side of the 4 horseman of atheism in full, for a whole chapter, without any comment. On the other hand, he presents the Indic side with minor critiques, and doesn't even go into what the scriptures say.
The book doesn't refer to the scriptures of the Hindu faith beyond a point either. It doesn't even refer to the Charvak school scriptures, or make the effort to have the manuscripts translated.from someone else.
The assumption that Japanese society is not plagued with modern caste problems is also a big assumption. While Japan may have mitigated most of their problems of their system through prosperity and freedom at the bottom level, the legal protection to the Eda community was not given until the 2010s afaik.
The book is unable to critically analyse Indic scriptures either. While varna-jati-kul based discrimination has no place in modern society, the book even mentions the scriptures that say it was due to diseases. But it doesn't go into the functional aspects of the system from back then, only the dysfunction of it (or at least it doesn't go into positive functions deeply enough). The Manusmriti can be reinterpreted to mean "we stay away from those with diseases" and "kingdoms run by degenerates" (like the USA). But maybe that's the conversation of another generation, one which has read more scriptures.
Besides, one's jati/kul identity is what roots them to the ground of this country (this bhumi). It is not blind visit to temples. It only produces blind faith and no improvement in one's life. One could maybe detach this jati/kul identity from the Vedas, Upanishads, Dharmshastras, etc. This is where Jatitva comes in, and it promotes the practice of regional butchering techniques, local meat and plants, dishes, our tribal identity (Agarwalrana, Valmiki samaj, etc). These achievements towards making dharma could be celebrated without practicing dharma. And the Vedas should be seen in a new light, under this method. To simply focus on the dysfunction, whether is it community temples or other institutions, is lost.
This caste practice is also why pluralism between Buddhism and Shinto exists. Many sects like Nichiren Daishonin emerged actively opposing the Shinto priestly class. Social reform has led to Japan's indigenous religion being the least practiced. Their texts don't hold precedence over the people either. The book ignores this yet again in an attempt to homogenize the Hindu society.
Whether it is secularism of the old or hindutva of the new, when the conversation shifts from coalition to homogenization it repulses the people and opposition forments. We saw many regional movements from Maharashtra, Assam, Punjab, UP, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and others when it came to opposing Indira Gandhi. Each was regionally chauvinistic and this led to the Ram Janambhumi movement afterwards. Now, Hindutva is doing the same homogenization which will have many regional-atheist revolts. The only certainty is that Muslims, a homogenizing force themselves, will not be a part of this conversation, being the foreign faith in practice.
The book only focuses on the "plurality" aspect of Eastern religions, but it doesn't go deep into the question of identity either. It is because of the lack of identity that otherwise comes with Jewish religions, that Eastern religions are more pluralistic. A Jew/Christian/Muslim is born one. An Eastern religion person becomes who they are through their practice. That is also at the root of "multiple sampradayas in the same family"; no one person practiced two sampradayas at once. This is what many raitacharyas get wrong on Indic religions, or their rhetoric doesn't reflect it.
The author could have put their own beliefs aside and tried to see this side of the world for what it is. Eastern religions focus on non-violence and non-meat (like Cao Dai in Vietnam, etc), they focus on a non-personified larger entity, they are about the communication is done through a deity between these two. They also, almost all, worship nature. But this also does not apply to all of them. There is more than simply western constructs of secularism and pluralism that hold us together. That is still not left explored enough.
Overall, the book is not the best at making a comprehensive argument on Eastern religions. It does, however, provide a political toolkit to bring "pagan unity" across the globe. But it is too nascent, and the book only does this latently, ie by mistake.
So it may be a good addition to the growing pool of "Indic" literature, but I doubt the longevity of this text in the long run. It may inspire many at best.
The book is criminally underrated in leftist circles, which is sad. It is where the book belongs, and it should be circulated in those circles more. Because even if every Bharatiya reads it, only one side will adopt it.
The book isn't bad, but it is overreliant on twitter thinkbros. It has started a political conversation, but let's see how it evolves and whether the entire country is able to take part in it.
Let's start with the great: the book offers a good theological opposition to the Abrahamic religions; all of which are of Jewish origin. This "monopolized monotheism" and assumption that the Universal God is also one's personal God has been the most catastrophic assumption for humans.
The book even goes after Buddha's belief in the Varna system, although this may be reflective of his belief before sanyas.
The author, although, makes many errors in this itself. He confuses atheism, which is a belief, with Mimansa, which is a philosophy. This is comparing apples to oranges. The Mimansa is arguing philosophically that even if there is no greater Brahman, there should not be a lack of practice with a personal deity.
The book presents the side of the 4 horseman of atheism in full, for a whole chapter, without any comment. On the other hand, he presents the Indic side with minor critiques, and doesn't even go into what the scriptures say.
The book doesn't refer to the scriptures of the Hindu faith beyond a point either. It doesn't even refer to the Charvak school scriptures, or make the effort to have the manuscripts translated.from someone else.
The assumption that Japanese society is not plagued with modern caste problems is also a big assumption. While Japan may have mitigated most of their problems of their system through prosperity and freedom at the bottom level, the legal protection to the Eda community was not given until the 2010s afaik.
The book is unable to critically analyse Indic scriptures either. While varna-jati-kul based discrimination has no place in modern society, the book even mentions the scriptures that say it was due to diseases. But it doesn't go into the functional aspects of the system from back then, only the dysfunction of it (or at least it doesn't go into positive functions deeply enough). The Manusmriti can be reinterpreted to mean "we stay away from those with diseases" and "kingdoms run by degenerates" (like the USA). But maybe that's the conversation of another generation, one which has read more scriptures.
Besides, one's jati/kul identity is what roots them to the ground of this country (this bhumi). It is not blind visit to temples. It only produces blind faith and no improvement in one's life. One could maybe detach this jati/kul identity from the Vedas, Upanishads, Dharmshastras, etc. This is where Jatitva comes in, and it promotes the practice of regional butchering techniques, local meat and plants, dishes, our tribal identity (Agarwalrana, Valmiki samaj, etc). These achievements towards making dharma could be celebrated without practicing dharma. And the Vedas should be seen in a new light, under this method. To simply focus on the dysfunction, whether is it community temples or other institutions, is lost.
This caste practice is also why pluralism between Buddhism and Shinto exists. Many sects like Nichiren Daishonin emerged actively opposing the Shinto priestly class. Social reform has led to Japan's indigenous religion being the least practiced. Their texts don't hold precedence over the people either. The book ignores this yet again in an attempt to homogenize the Hindu society.
Whether it is secularism of the old or hindutva of the new, when the conversation shifts from coalition to homogenization it repulses the people and opposition forments. We saw many regional movements from Maharashtra, Assam, Punjab, UP, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and others when it came to opposing Indira Gandhi. Each was regionally chauvinistic and this led to the Ram Janambhumi movement afterwards. Now, Hindutva is doing the same homogenization which will have many regional-atheist revolts. The only certainty is that Muslims, a homogenizing force themselves, will not be a part of this conversation, being the foreign faith in practice.
The book only focuses on the "plurality" aspect of Eastern religions, but it doesn't go deep into the question of identity either. It is because of the lack of identity that otherwise comes with Jewish religions, that Eastern religions are more pluralistic. A Jew/Christian/Muslim is born one. An Eastern religion person becomes who they are through their practice. That is also at the root of "multiple sampradayas in the same family"; no one person practiced two sampradayas at once. This is what many raitacharyas get wrong on Indic religions, or their rhetoric doesn't reflect it.
The author could have put their own beliefs aside and tried to see this side of the world for what it is. Eastern religions focus on non-violence and non-meat (like Cao Dai in Vietnam, etc), they focus on a non-personified larger entity, they are about the communication is done through a deity between these two. They also, almost all, worship nature. But this also does not apply to all of them. There is more than simply western constructs of secularism and pluralism that hold us together. That is still not left explored enough.
Overall, the book is not the best at making a comprehensive argument on Eastern religions. It does, however, provide a political toolkit to bring "pagan unity" across the globe. But it is too nascent, and the book only does this latently, ie by mistake.
So it may be a good addition to the growing pool of "Indic" literature, but I doubt the longevity of this text in the long run. It may inspire many at best.
The book is criminally underrated in leftist circles, which is sad. It is where the book belongs, and it should be circulated in those circles more. Because even if every Bharatiya reads it, only one side will adopt it.
The book isn't bad, but it is overreliant on twitter thinkbros. It has started a political conversation, but let's see how it evolves and whether the entire country is able to take part in it.
August 25, 2024
First half was insightful and interesting.
Second half got a bit more academic and dry.
Would have loved if the author had actually expanded on the concepts of 'Nastika' and 'Nirishvaravada', instead of just introducing those terms superficially.
Second half got a bit more academic and dry.
Would have loved if the author had actually expanded on the concepts of 'Nastika' and 'Nirishvaravada', instead of just introducing those terms superficially.
March 5, 2025
ನಂಬದಿರ್ದನು ತಂದೆ, ನಂಬಿದನು ಪ್ರಹ್ಲಾದ
ನಂಬಿಯುಂ ನಂಬದಿರುವಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ನೀನು
ಕಂಬದಿನೋ ಬಿಂಬದಿನೋ ಮೋಕ್ಷವವರಿಂಗಾಯ್ತ
ಸಿಂಬಳದಿ ನೊಣ ನೀನು - ಮಂಕುತಿಮ್ಮ
Prahlaada believed but his father didn’t believe,
but you believe and believe not, an undependable hybrid,
their salvation they won through pillar or image,
but you are a fly in mucus-Mankuthimma
Kushal Mehra’s “Why I Am Not an Atheist” presents a compelling critique of atheism, blending philosophical reasoning with personal reflections to challenge widely held secular perspectives. The book’s central argument is that Western form of atheism is not the only rational alternative. Mehra contends that Western atheism oversimplifies the belief systems, failing to appreciate their cultural & existential significance. In doing so, he challenges its assumed status as the default rational position. Instead, he advocates for an alternative rooted in Indian philosophical traditions, particularly the Nāstik schools, as a more nuanced framework for skepticism. In doing so he “challenge the culture of negativity that so often dominates our conversations about faith & disbelief & instead focus on the quieter, more nuanced journeys that get overshadowed by their more sensational counterparts”(Loc:200)
Acknowledging both the benefits & flaws of religion, Mehra argues that religion functions as a necessary social & psychological construct. Rather than endorsing Western atheism, New Atheism, or Atheism+, he promotes Dharmic skepticism, which offers a more balanced & introspective approach to disbelief.
Overall, this book is a thought-provoking work that challenges binary debates on belief & atheism, encouraging open inquiry & philosophical flexibility. “This book celebrates human progress; it is a testament to the power of introspection, questioning, & self-discovery & a reminder that sometimes the most profound transformations occur not in the spotlight but in the quiet corners of our hearts & minds”(Loc:219) However, the author’s writing style could be more structured. At times, the book reads like a collection of reading notes hurriedly compiled rather than a carefully developed argument with a slow, methodical build-up to prove his hypothesis.
ನಂಬಿಯುಂ ನಂಬದಿರುವಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ನೀನು
ಕಂಬದಿನೋ ಬಿಂಬದಿನೋ ಮೋಕ್ಷವವರಿಂಗಾಯ್ತ
ಸಿಂಬಳದಿ ನೊಣ ನೀನು - ಮಂಕುತಿಮ್ಮ
Prahlaada believed but his father didn’t believe,
but you believe and believe not, an undependable hybrid,
their salvation they won through pillar or image,
but you are a fly in mucus-Mankuthimma
Kushal Mehra’s “Why I Am Not an Atheist” presents a compelling critique of atheism, blending philosophical reasoning with personal reflections to challenge widely held secular perspectives. The book’s central argument is that Western form of atheism is not the only rational alternative. Mehra contends that Western atheism oversimplifies the belief systems, failing to appreciate their cultural & existential significance. In doing so, he challenges its assumed status as the default rational position. Instead, he advocates for an alternative rooted in Indian philosophical traditions, particularly the Nāstik schools, as a more nuanced framework for skepticism. In doing so he “challenge the culture of negativity that so often dominates our conversations about faith & disbelief & instead focus on the quieter, more nuanced journeys that get overshadowed by their more sensational counterparts”(Loc:200)
Acknowledging both the benefits & flaws of religion, Mehra argues that religion functions as a necessary social & psychological construct. Rather than endorsing Western atheism, New Atheism, or Atheism+, he promotes Dharmic skepticism, which offers a more balanced & introspective approach to disbelief.
Overall, this book is a thought-provoking work that challenges binary debates on belief & atheism, encouraging open inquiry & philosophical flexibility. “This book celebrates human progress; it is a testament to the power of introspection, questioning, & self-discovery & a reminder that sometimes the most profound transformations occur not in the spotlight but in the quiet corners of our hearts & minds”(Loc:219) However, the author’s writing style could be more structured. At times, the book reads like a collection of reading notes hurriedly compiled rather than a carefully developed argument with a slow, methodical build-up to prove his hypothesis.
December 25, 2024
This book explores Indian philosophical traditions and their nuanced approach to atheism, contrasting it with Western atheism, particularly neo-atheism. It delves into what it means to be a "Nastika"—one who rejects the belief in a divine creator deity, the authority of the Vedas, and concepts like karma and rebirth while still engaging with rituals, festivals, meditation, and yoga.
Based on core philosophies like Samkhya, Mimamsa, and Carvaka, as well as Buddhist and Jain perspectives on the creator theory, Kushal provides a panoramic view of atheistic traditions in India. His exploration of atheism extends to Western neo-atheism, critiquing figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett (the “Four Horsemen”) for their often reductionist approach to religion.
One of the book’s key arguments is that religion, despite its flaws, is inevitable in human society. Mehra examines why secular groups often fail to form cohesive communities and uses frameworks from Jonathan Haidt and Sam Harris to evaluate religion's moral dimensions. The book is particularly compelling in its balanced discussion of the good and bad sides of religious practices, including their social cohesion and discriminatory tendencies, particularly towards women, across all religions, including Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.
However, the book is not without flaws. Some sections feel repetitive, and there are noticeable editing and formatting errors. While the discussion on caste is insightful, it lacks textual evidence that explicitly states the differentiation regarding birth-based superiority. Additionally, while the chapter on "The Complexity of Indian Society" is well-written, it feels tangential to the book’s central thesis.
Despite these shortcomings, it is a thought-provoking read encouraging critical engagement with religion, philosophy, and society. Kushal's personal reflections, particularly in the concluding chapter, “Why I am a Hindu,” add a human touch to this intellectual journey, making it a valuable contribution to contemporary discourse.
Based on core philosophies like Samkhya, Mimamsa, and Carvaka, as well as Buddhist and Jain perspectives on the creator theory, Kushal provides a panoramic view of atheistic traditions in India. His exploration of atheism extends to Western neo-atheism, critiquing figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett (the “Four Horsemen”) for their often reductionist approach to religion.
One of the book’s key arguments is that religion, despite its flaws, is inevitable in human society. Mehra examines why secular groups often fail to form cohesive communities and uses frameworks from Jonathan Haidt and Sam Harris to evaluate religion's moral dimensions. The book is particularly compelling in its balanced discussion of the good and bad sides of religious practices, including their social cohesion and discriminatory tendencies, particularly towards women, across all religions, including Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.
However, the book is not without flaws. Some sections feel repetitive, and there are noticeable editing and formatting errors. While the discussion on caste is insightful, it lacks textual evidence that explicitly states the differentiation regarding birth-based superiority. Additionally, while the chapter on "The Complexity of Indian Society" is well-written, it feels tangential to the book’s central thesis.
Despite these shortcomings, it is a thought-provoking read encouraging critical engagement with religion, philosophy, and society. Kushal's personal reflections, particularly in the concluding chapter, “Why I am a Hindu,” add a human touch to this intellectual journey, making it a valuable contribution to contemporary discourse.
November 17, 2024
3.5/5 I have been listening to Kushal’s Carvaka podcast for years, and when his book came out I had to read it. The main problem with the book is that it attempts too much and seems to lack depth at times because of that. Ironically, it also reminded of a text-book at times.
The title suggested that Kushal was going to discuss on a niche subject- a-theism in India vs anti-theism in the West/Abrahamic faiths. When I read Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk’s “Snow”, i was aghast to see that even he envisaged only 2 categories - believers (Muslims) and atheists. What happened to all the shades in between - to the moderates, the nominal / cultural Muslims ? Compare that to India, where I and many like me are neither religious nor atheist and unbothered by it. This was a discussion worth having.
But, soon it became a lot of things - evolution and necessity of religion, on universal moral principles and whether they exist, freedom of religion, caste/gender discrimination in religions and the “eighth-class” (Anand Ranganathan’s words) treatment meted out to Hindus by courts. Each of these topics is a raging debate and difficult to do justice in one 250 page book.
Also, caste जाति is totally different from guilds/varna in other societies. Religion has to be judged from its practices and not scriptures. The infinite no. of divisions within castes and the prevailing endogamy are unique to Hinduism/Indic faiths. There is discrimination and classes in Abrahamic religions too, but not to this level - their hatred towards non-believers is another matter! No amount of quoting scriptures will convince me that “religion of peace” has gender-equality and is tolerant - it is irrelevant and actual practice is what matters. Ditto for casteism in Hinduism. I think Kushal got it wrong here.
The title suggested that Kushal was going to discuss on a niche subject- a-theism in India vs anti-theism in the West/Abrahamic faiths. When I read Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk’s “Snow”, i was aghast to see that even he envisaged only 2 categories - believers (Muslims) and atheists. What happened to all the shades in between - to the moderates, the nominal / cultural Muslims ? Compare that to India, where I and many like me are neither religious nor atheist and unbothered by it. This was a discussion worth having.
But, soon it became a lot of things - evolution and necessity of religion, on universal moral principles and whether they exist, freedom of religion, caste/gender discrimination in religions and the “eighth-class” (Anand Ranganathan’s words) treatment meted out to Hindus by courts. Each of these topics is a raging debate and difficult to do justice in one 250 page book.
Also, caste जाति is totally different from guilds/varna in other societies. Religion has to be judged from its practices and not scriptures. The infinite no. of divisions within castes and the prevailing endogamy are unique to Hinduism/Indic faiths. There is discrimination and classes in Abrahamic religions too, but not to this level - their hatred towards non-believers is another matter! No amount of quoting scriptures will convince me that “religion of peace” has gender-equality and is tolerant - it is irrelevant and actual practice is what matters. Ditto for casteism in Hinduism. I think Kushal got it wrong here.
October 19, 2024
I enjoyed the author's podcast with Amit Varma and that's what led me to the book. Mehra, an active podcaster himself with his Carvaka podcast, has some unique and interesting perspectives on religion, especially the differences between the mono-theistic and polytheistic religions. The book makes some good points about the monotheistic lens used to "evaluate" religions and traditions and how it is unfair for many Eastern societies. I didn't agree with all the points the author makes but the perspective was refreshing.
The book has copious amounts of material which the author refers from the modern works of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. to the Upanishads and Baba Bulleh Shah's poet. All this makes from an interesting follow-up reads - I would highly recommend the book's bibliography.
Where "Nastik" falters is in the narrative, which meanders from one topic to another. Even within the topic there are often many paths and while these rabbitholes are excellent to get into, I think the book form is not best suited for them. This could have been excellent as a set of podcast episodes.
The book has copious amounts of material which the author refers from the modern works of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. to the Upanishads and Baba Bulleh Shah's poet. All this makes from an interesting follow-up reads - I would highly recommend the book's bibliography.
Where "Nastik" falters is in the narrative, which meanders from one topic to another. Even within the topic there are often many paths and while these rabbitholes are excellent to get into, I think the book form is not best suited for them. This could have been excellent as a set of podcast episodes.
November 9, 2025
As a Hindu Atheist myself, a lot of Mehra's views resonate with me. Being from the 'Hitch-slap' generation, a lot of what he writes makes perfect sense. The central insight of the book - that monotheistic dogma and Dharma treat atheist very differently - is well taken. His knowledge of religion also come across as quite extensive and nuanced.
Where the book falters however is in its incoherence and fleeting nature at times. It could have been more streamlined, perhaps split into two volumes.
All in all, a good read, especially for the militant Indian atheists who take their cues from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchen whilst ignoring the Indian knowledge systems that don't subject them to the kind of condemnation that monotheistic, Abrahamic faiths do.
Where the book falters however is in its incoherence and fleeting nature at times. It could have been more streamlined, perhaps split into two volumes.
All in all, a good read, especially for the militant Indian atheists who take their cues from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchen whilst ignoring the Indian knowledge systems that don't subject them to the kind of condemnation that monotheistic, Abrahamic faiths do.
January 4, 2026
A voluble book written in an academic style that should ideally have been a booklet or, even better, a pamphlet! Kushal Mehra repeats words, phrases and ideas ad nauseam until the reader is nudged to skim through paragraphs, pages and entire chapters altogether. Brevity is an art lost on this writer for sure.
Thanks to this massive challenge, I just couldn’t relate to the many ideas he discusses in the book. And the excessive focus on the differences between Western atheists and their eastern counterparts just distracts from the main thrust of the book.
Nevertheless it is packed with numerous insights that might interest the discerning reader who has the patience and is prepared for a not so pleasurable read.
Thanks to this massive challenge, I just couldn’t relate to the many ideas he discusses in the book. And the excessive focus on the differences between Western atheists and their eastern counterparts just distracts from the main thrust of the book.
Nevertheless it is packed with numerous insights that might interest the discerning reader who has the patience and is prepared for a not so pleasurable read.
Read
July 29, 2024First the good points: Informative, eclectic has diverse viewpoints. Enriched my understanding on certain topics from a contrarian perspective. The author elucidates why he is a nastik and remains a Hindu in comparison to the rigidity of Abrahamic faiths. For a deep dive into the discourse around Sanatan Dharma and misunderstandings, Aravindan Neelakandan is more exhaustive.
Lags in certain parts. Mr. Mehra seems to swerve in all directions of the ideological spectrum, so a bit unclear on that front. Worth reading once.
Lags in certain parts. Mr. Mehra seems to swerve in all directions of the ideological spectrum, so a bit unclear on that front. Worth reading once.
January 29, 2025
It helped me with a preliminary understanding of various hindu philosophical traditions, but I couldn't shake the feeling that the author was trying to convince me that his way is the best way. This, despite the book being all about accepting pluralistic points of view. There were some inconsistencies in his arguments and some sources quoted were problematic. Nevertheless, I learnt a few new things.
May 9, 2025
My interpretation : An Indian who wanted to be different from his peers in India became an atheist. Later he went to the USA and again in his desire to be different from his peers in the USA embraced the Indian version of atheism–Nastik. Thats all.
January 15, 2025
Great book despite some topics appearing jarringly sudden, thus breaking the flow of the message of the chapter
September 17, 2025
Very informational a good start to knowing about eastern philosophies focusing on Hinduism. Got a bit repetitive in the end but overall a good read.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews