Jump to content
The Education Forum

Immigration: Is this a right-wing issue?


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

The capitalists have globalised and so should we.

An interesting idea. The trouble is the unions might become as addicted to high immigration as the capitalists are.

good point well missed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your optimism, John. I don't know about the viability of using the artesian basin as a water source. I haven't read much about it, but I assume scientists are considering it.

The problem, as I see it, is really a global one--although at present the dillemma of overcrowded cities is a natural consequence of global overpopulation. The world's population has gone from 1.5 at the start of the 20th century to 6.5 billion now, and is projected to grow to 9 billion by 2050. (I haven't got the figures handy so I apologise for inaccuracies).

These additional people require water, power, food, housing, roads, jobs and many other things besides. Carbon emmissions from burning fossil fuels is a problem as is the vast quantities of waste generated by an average western household (I have read the figure of one ton of dispoable nappies is used by the average western baby). There's also the issue of human habitation encroaching on the habitats of other species. Again, I don't have the actual numbers handy but I know that species are becoming extinct at the highest rate in history. How will they survive if the vast majority of the planet's surface is designated for human habitation, food and energy production? What gives us the right to crowd out many of the other species which share this planet and cause their extinction?

The endless growth paradigm supporting capitalism is unsustainable. I think the global opinion leaders already know that. We'll need to switch to more sustainable and less environmentally damaging lifestyles, if we are to avoid economic and environmental disaster.

While we're in the process of doing that, I think we should look at curbing the growth rate of our own species. It's too dangerous for the planet and its occupants.

Sustainability rather than growth for growth's sake.

Edited by Andy Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see a parallel in America. Feelings against illegal immigration go across the political spectrum- liberal to conservative, but somehow politicians themselves seem to be unwilling to tackle what many of us consider a serious issue. INterestingly it seems like radical malcontents and big business are aligned. Big business relies on the cheap labor, while the radicals see any mention of illegal immigration as an attack on immigration in general and inherently racist, which of course it's not.

The rest of the world should take heed from the lessons learned as a result of the actions of one Wickliffe

P. Draper, of The Pioneer Fund, who persecuted and prosecuted both Sacco and Vanzetti to their deaths.

He and his close fiends at the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies sponsored the anti-Immigration Act

of 1924 because he knew that this was the best way to prevent the upcoming flood of refugees from Nazi

Germany from ever reaching safe haven from the upcoming pogroms. When he formed the Immigration

Committee at HUAC under Rep. Francis Walter, he and Richard G. Arens used the anti-Immigration campaign

to promote their brand of Xenophobia that eventually culminated in Proposition 187 long after their deaths.

FAIR sponsored most of Proposition 187 and received their funding from The Pioneer Fund itself. Draper

was one of the staunchest opponents of Unions in America because most of his 500 Textile Mill clients relied

on cheap labor and the presence of Company Towns (Hopedale, MA was the FIRST one) to keep their

Cotton Spinners in a state of indentured servitude forever. Draper's ancestors were Cotton Plantation and

Cotton Gin owners and they knew how to keep their "Cotton Pickers" picking as either slaves or for slave

wages. When Lincoln put an end to this little monopolistic tyranny he was murdered by these plantation

owners who tried to reverse the tide of the Abolition Movement or to punish Lincoln for bringing it to reality.

The same thing happened to JFK when he essentially bankrupted The Draper Corp. and the entire Textile

Industry by refusing to put up tighter barriers to textile imports and to reduce the power of Unions. The

few remaining Textile Mills moved to the safe haven of North and South Carolina where Helms and Thurmond

created an anti-Union atmosphere which encouraged Textile Mill owners to move there. There was even a

murder of a striker at J. P. Stevens as recently as the 1970's as I recall.

Both Lincoln and JFK were murdered after they went against the Draper and Company Textile interests.

Then Draper turned his Butter into Guns (according to Samuelson) and was bought out by Rockwell Intl

in 1967 even though the Draper Corp. was nearly insolvent and bankrupt at the time. Can you guess why?

Edited by John Bevilaqua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says it's half empty. I say it's both.

________________

(Permanently flooding Victoria Lake (from around port arthur, not douglas, my mistake) will increase the size and reliability of the artesian basin.)

________________

Generally it has been found that prosperous educated nations that have equal rights for men and women naturally move towards ZPG. Where security, health care, job opportunities, childcare exists for all, the birth and death rates tend to equalise.

Poor nations with poor education and women with little to no rights tend to have large families and a high infant mortality rate which prompts further children etc.

Therefore, if one seriously considers that the earth cannot sustain its present populaton (which IMO is not so : many more can live in it, we are nowhere near the doomsayers limit) then the right thing to do is to redistribute wealth, ease/abolish debts, create a level global playing field, counter patriarchy, equalise and improve education opportunities, and in Health Care : provide sustainable nutrition flows, clean water and quality health care, abolish the patenting of impotent hybrid food seed, aim for multi/rotational, not large scale mono agriculture to naturally buffer against pests, diversify to absorb shortfalls.

Peace, comfort and security, particularly protection from indigent governments, free flow of people throughout the world ie multi-culturalisation, diversifying the gene pool, drop anti 'right to choose' and adopt Womans control over her own body. et.c. along that vein is the soluyion, ie there is no problem as presented.

The 'problem' is the absence of these things. Immigration, overpopulation, is indeed a right wing agenda issue, the solution is not.

The result will be a self sufficient world where sufficient resources will be available to not just humanity but to all species.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says it's half empty. I say it's both.

________________

(Permanently flooding Victoria Lake (from around port arthur, not douglas, my mistake) will increase the size and reliability of the artesian basin.)

________________

Generally it has been found that prosperous educated nations that have equal rights for men and women naturally move towards ZPG. Where security, health care, job opportunities, childcare exists for all, the birth and death rates tend to equalise.

Poor nations with poor education and women with little to no rights tend to have large families and a high infant mortality rate which prompts further children etc.

Therefore, if one seriously considers that the earth cannot sustain its present populaton (which IMO is not so : many more can live in it, we are nowhere near the doomsayers limit) then the right thing to do is to redistribute wealth, ease/abolish debts, create a level global playing field, counter patriarchy, equalise and improve education opportunities, and in Health Care : provide sustainable nutrition flows, clean water and quality health care, abolish the patenting of impotent hybrid food seed, aim for multi/rotational, not large scale mono agriculture to naturally buffer against pests, diversify to absorb shortfalls.

Peace, comfort and security, particularly protection from indigent governments, free flow of people throughout the world ie multi-culturalisation, diversifying the gene pool, drop anti 'right to choose' and adopt Womans control over her own body. et.c. along that vein is the soluyion, ie there is no problem as presented.

The 'problem' is the absence of these things. Immigration, overpopulation, is indeed a right wing agenda issue, the solution is not.

The result will be a self sufficient world where sufficient resources will be available to not just humanity but to all species.

I agree that wealth redistribution and improvements to global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious, but while we wait decades, or even centuries for this to happen, species are becoming endangered and extinct at an ever increasing rate:

http://environment.independent.co.uk/natur...icle3098853.ece

One of the main causes is habitat loss. In countries like Indonesia and Brazil, rainforest clearing is the problem. Human population growth is causing the extinction of other species, pure and simple. Species which have taken millions of years to evolve.

It's easy to dismiss those who claim the planet is overpopulated as doomsayers, but what then is the optimum human population level which would guarantee relative prosperity and sustainability for the planet's inhabitants? Nobody ever seems to focus on this question. Governments don't want to investigate the issue because they see their future national prosperity as being directly linked to endless population growth. You claim Australia can potentially sustain a population of 250 million (I disagree), but why is a tenfold increase in our population desirable or necessary? And what happens when the population reaches that level? Will it then become necessary to expand it even further for economic reasons? Will we then require an even larger gene pool to save us from disaster?

There doesn't seem to be any reason or logic behind our apparent desire to cover the surface of the planet with only one species. It's seems that religion has seared this madness into mankind's psyche.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Dolva:

The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says it's half empty. I say it's both.

(Neither bereftness nor cheerfulness will fill it. It takes action.)

___________

Generally it has been found that prosperous educated nations that have equal rights** for men and women** naturally move towards ZPG. Where security, health care, job opportunities, childcare exists for all, the birth and death rates tend to equalise.

Poor nations with poor education and Woman with little to no rights tend to have large families and a high infant mortality rate which prompts further children etc.

Therefore, if one seriously considers that the earth cannot sustain its present populaton (which IMO is not so : many more can live in it, we are nowhere near the doomsayers limit) then the right thing to do is to redistribute wealth, ease/abolish debts, create a level global playing field, counter patriarchy, equalise and improve education opportunities, and in Health Care : provide sustainable nutrition flows, clean water and quality health care, abolish the patenting of impotent hybrid food seed, aim for multi/rotational, not large scale mono agriculture to naturally buffer against pests, diversify to absorb shortfalls.

Peace, comfort and security, particularly protection from indigent governments, free flow of people throughout the world ie multi-culturalisation, diversifying the gene pool, drop anti 'right to choose' and adopt Womans control over her own body. et.c. along that vein is the solution, ie there is no problem as presented.

The 'problem' is the absence of these things. Immigration, overpopulation, is indeed a right wing agenda issue, the solution is not.

The result will be a self sufficient world where sufficient resources will be available to not just humanity but to all species.

OOOOOOOOOOO

Mark : "I agree that wealth redistribution and improvements to global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious, but while we wait decades, or even centuries for this to happen, species are becoming endangered and extinct at an ever increasing rate."

John : I never argued that "global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious" though it certainly could be an outcome. Rather, as Peter repeadedly and pointedly on many occasions in many posts argues, it's time to ACT.

This touches on the JFK forum issues. For 100 years, repeately, President after President told the Blacks to 'wait' re the fulfilment of the post Civil war 'freeing' of slaves and giving them equal rights.

JFK, in mid '63 declared the time of waiting is over. Five months later he was dead.

______________

Mark : "One of the main causes is habitat loss. In countries like Indonesia and Brazil, rainforest clearing is the problem. Human population growth is causing the extinction of other species, pure and simple."

John : Core issues : "rainforest clearing is the problem. Human population growth is causing the extinction of other species, pure and simple." Beg to disagree.

Rainforests are cleared to expose minerals. Starving treasure seekers flock to live short dangerous lives, killing Native peoples (negative population growth) and ecosystems in the process and washing delicate soil foundations into the Amazon. The result is, among other things, a drop in world Oxygen levels, ie reduction in fundamental resources which makes for an argument that there are too many people.

Why IS it so.

Well, one can trace it partly to what Castro recognised as the one serious challenge to the Cuban peoples solution, Kennedy's (or at least the rhetoric of it, (he was not around to see it's subversion)) "The Alliance for Progress". which has turned into a massive debt problem. ie pressure to reap resources, come what may, to service debt. Partly, the land after mineral resources are exploited and/or concurrent with it the previously balanced eco system supplying a significant percentage of the worlds Oxygen, feed cattle that are turned into flavoured cardboard called 'quarterpounders' in obese rich nations.

Again to service debt.

Costa Rica (not sure about how it is today), but certainly, while Raygonzo's 'freedom fighters' (CONTRA) were impoverishing and killing off people in Nicaragua, (negative poplation growth) following Somozas reign of terror (negative population growth) and hub as deadly-drug supplier (negative population growth) the native Costa Rican fishing fleets were catching enough food to feed the whole nation, yet near 100% was sold (service debt) to the USofA where it was/is processed to be tinned and stacked in supermarkets to be bought to feed cats. A species not native to the Americas. Meanwhile the poor Costa Ricans starve and are forced into IMF, World Bank agreements that further impoverish them.

Mark : "It's easy to dismiss those who claim the planet is overpopulated as doomsayers, but what then is the optimum human population level which would guarantee relative prosperity and sustainability for the planet's inhabitants?"

John : I agree, it is very easy indeed.

Optimum? : That which is self sufficient, sharing, green and sustaining, ie. the product of 'Right (correct) Thinking". A naturally achieved harmony.

Mark : "You claim Australia can potentially sustain a population of 250 million (I disagree), but why is a tenfold increase in our population desirable or necessary? And what happens when the population reaches that level? Will it then become necessary to expand it even further for economic reasons? Will we then require an even larger gene pool to save us from disaster?"

John : My 'claim' is illustrative of 'thinking outside the box'. ACTION : easing population pressures elsewhere, developing self sustaining green technologies.

As Peter states, there is no water shortage here. There is an established dogma that counetracts non profit raising endeavours that can provide global solutions, and in turn change economies to ethics driven ones and lo : there are indeed profits to be made. (me) : "Generally it has been found that prosperous educated nations that have equal rights for men and women naturally move towards ZPG. (re-emphasis)"

In the process, problems are being solved, population growths stabilised

Mark : "There doesn't seem to be any reason or logic behind our apparent desire to cover the surface of the planet with only one species. It's seems that religion has seared this madness into mankind's psyche."

John : Who has this desire? I'd like to have some harsh words with this person!

Religion or Ethical Spirituality? Religion, yes maybe, elaborate please?

Finish: A scenario: a Volvo factory in Sweden. 27 hour week, no stationary assembly, a team follows a car from start to finish, long paid holidays, free health care, free education, 18 months paid maternity leave to first one partner (usually, sensibly the mother, with a job to go back to, followed by 18 months same to partner). A country with near ZPG for decades, the second or third largest in area country in Europe and one with one of the lowest population number. 150 odd multinational companies, many significant, Bofors, Saab, Volvo, Asko, ASEA, Ericsson/Sony, etc. Why? : Will and planning.

Why did Mandela visit Sweden first? Why was Sweden one of the first, if not the first. to recognise Israel AND the PLO, and the palestinians rightful claim for a sovereign nation? Why did Palme march with Ho Chi Minh, recognise and visit Castros Cuba? They build factories that make wooden rulers for schools rather than sponsor death squads.

If you want sweet mango to eat you plant sweet mango seed. If you plant thistles, no amount of prayer will lead to anything but a harvest of thistles.

Kennedy, spiriual (ethical, scholarly) recognised this.

This is a large factor in making his assassination so pivotal and important. There was a before, a promise, and an after.

A new wave will come. The lessons are there. They can be learnt, and this time we CAN win.

WILLINGNESS, ACTION, not 'waiting'.

**Patriarchy is a typical Fascist posture.

The Russian revolution, that pre Stalin Dictatorship enacted equal rights, was triggered by the "International Womens Day" parade. Woman is fundamental to much positive change.

Anti ERA, subversion of the growth impetus of poltical correctness, under Reagan stymied change.

The mothers and grand mothers of the Disappeared in Argentina significantly led to the downfall of 'the Generals'. et.c et.c

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark : "I agree that wealth redistribution and improvements to global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious, but while we wait decades, or even centuries for this to happen, species are becoming endangered and extinct at an ever increasing rate."

John : I never argued that "global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious" though it certainly could be an outcome. Rather, as Peter repeadedly and pointedly on many occasions in many posts argues, it's time to ACT.

As far as I can tell, nobody's disagreeing that it's time to act. However, you claim that Australia's population should be multiplied tenfold. You haven't explained why this is a desirable course of action.

Mark : "One of the main causes is habitat loss. In countries like Indonesia and Brazil, rainforest clearing is the problem. Human population growth is causing the extinction of other species, pure and simple."

John : Core issues : "rainforest clearing is the problem. Human population growth is causing the extinction of other species, pure and simple." Beg to disagree.

Rainforests are cleared to expose minerals. Starving treasure seekers flock to live short dangerous lives, killing Native peoples (negative population growth) and ecosystems in the process and washing delicate soil foundations into the Amazon. The result is, among other things, a drop in world Oxygen levels, ie reduction in fundamental resources which makes for an argument that there are too many people.

Rainforests aren't cleared solely for the purpse of extracting minerals. That is one of the reasons. Others include housing, agriculture, roadbuilding and logging:

http://library.thinkquest.org/26993/amazon.htm

Mark : "It's easy to dismiss those who claim the planet is overpopulated as doomsayers, but what then is the optimum human population level which would guarantee relative prosperity and sustainability for the planet's inhabitants?"

John : I agree, it is very easy indeed.

Optimum? : That which is self sufficient, sharing, green and sustaining, ie. the product of 'Right (correct) Thinking". A naturally achieved harmony.

Nice words, John, but vague. What's the optimum level of human population? In numbers, I mean. If I am to be dismissed as doomsayer, then you're also putting Peter Lemkin in that category, because he opines (post #22) that the current world population of 6.5 billion is well over the earth's carrying capacity of about 2 billion. Looks like you're in the minority, but I'll refrain from labelling you.

Mark : "You claim Australia can potentially sustain a population of 250 million (I disagree), but why is a tenfold increase in our population desirable or necessary? And what happens when the population reaches that level? Will it then become necessary to expand it even further for economic reasons? Will we then require an even larger gene pool to save us from disaster?"

John : My 'claim' is illustrative of 'thinking outside the box'. ACTION : easing population pressures elsewhere, developing self sustaining green technologies.

As Peter states, there is no water shortage here. There is an established dogma that counetracts non profit raising endeavours that can provide global solutions, and in turn change economies to ethics driven ones and lo : there are indeed profits to be made. (me) : "Generally it has been found that prosperous educated nations that have equal rights for men and women naturally move towards ZPG. (re-emphasis)"

In the process, problems are being solved, population growths stabilised

???? How is multiplying the population of Australia by ten an example of thinking outside the box? Why is it desirable?

Mark : "There doesn't seem to be any reason or logic behind our apparent desire to cover the surface of the planet with only one species. It's seems that religion has seared this madness into mankind's psyche."

John : Who has this desire? I'd like to have some harsh words with this person!

Religion or Ethical Spirituality? Religion, yes maybe, elaborate please?

My personal opinion is that religion has instilled in us the notion that as we occupy primacy among the species, our species should multiply, seemingly without limitataion. Reality has now caught up with us, and I notice the Pope is now making statements about environmental degradation. As I see it, problems like rainforest clearing can be sheeted home to the relentless expansion of human population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark : "I agree that wealth redistribution and improvements to global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious, but while we wait decades, or even centuries for this to happen, species are becoming endangered and extinct at an ever increasing rate."

John D : I never argued that "global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious" though it certainly could be an outcome. Rather, as Peter repeadedly and pointedly on many occasions in many posts argues, it's time to ACT.

Mark : As far as I can tell, nobody's disagreeing that it's time to act. However, you claim that Australia's population should be multiplied tenfold. You haven't explained why this is a desirable course of action.

Joh D. : I suggest a number which happens to be roughly tenfold. Perhaps a hundredfold would work as well.

In the previous posts a number of reasons are suggested. As in the poem posted, the surplus of other nations can be partly absorbed, benefitting not only australia but also other nations. A modern green technology driven frontier nation, (quite different from the "wild west"), would make the large cities a renters and buyers market resulting in an easing of the burdens that poorer people bear as they pay the landlords mortages for them and further, the demand on resources there would also be eased.

The 'make or break', no liabiity contract with the government for those 'heading bush' would drive the development of those technologies which can significantly benefit globally and locally as the successful settlements attract others and byproducts such as in time providing labour pools et.c. et.c.. Admittedly, some in the cities, and the 400 odd who would be bereft of owning australia may have to swap ferraris for corollas, but as they are in a tiny minority it's of no real consequence. Capping 'enough' at a few million $, or for those who would get severe stoamch cramps at a transitional billion $ or so, for this tiny minority, again of no real consequence to the world except as something contributing to equalty. Other reasons are gone into in previous posts. As well working people globally would be more empowered and united as a number of problems are seen as solutions waiting to happen.

John D, : Optimum? : That which is self sufficient, sharing, green and sustaining, ie. the product of 'Right (correct) Thinking". A naturally achieved harmony.

Mark : Nice words, John, but vague. What's the optimum level of human population? In numbers, I mean. If I am to be dismissed as doomsayer, then you're also putting Peter Lemkin in that category, because he opines (post #22) that the current world population of 6.5 billion is well over the earth's carrying capacity of about 2 billion. Looks like you're in the minority, but I'll refrain from labelling you.

John D: "What's the optimum level of human population? In numbers..." No idea, I suggest one will know when this harmony is achieved.

Certainly I put Peter, or anyone else suggesting there are too many poeple, in this category. Personally I consider there are too many (who happen to be real tiny minority) for whom a billion +$ is 'not enough' and wield an unwarranted power in the world as it is, creating the problems that makes it at all possible to argue that 'there are too many people'.

(Mark, where does this 2 billion (people) figure come from BTW?)

Please don't refrain from telling it as it is, as far as my sensibilities go. Labelling is so pervasive one becomes somewhat innured to it. However while the subject is at hand, labelling does have certain attenedants consequences as it makes it easier to shuffle, through stereotyping, 'undesirables' 'off the scene'.

Ultimately though, it's of no consequence.

I suspect future sociologists will find a well manured harvest of 20'th - 21'st century thinking on this forum.

Mark : My personal opinion is that religion has instilled in us the notion that as we occupy primacy among the species, our species should multiply, seemingly without limitataion. Reality has now caught up with us, and I notice the Pope is now making statements about environmental degradation. As I see it, problems like rainforest clearing can be sheeted home to the relentless expansion of human population.

John D : "Mark" "My personal opinion is that religion has instilled in us the notion that as we occupy primacy among the species, our species should multiply, seemingly without limitataion." - arguably correct.

"Reality has now caught up with us..." - I wonder...

"the Pope is now making statements about environmental degradation." - About b....y time too.

"As I see it, problems like rainforest clearing can be sheeted home to the relentless expansion of human population." - a tiny minority is degrading the rainfrest due to the massive greed of another tiny minority, certainly not to be "sheeted home to the relentless expansion of human population."

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The needs of capitalism is a cause of population growth in this already crowded island.The Uk population was going to fall prior to the immigration of the last 50 years.With modern technology this population could have managed ok if wealth distribution had been more even ,dispite the greying of the population.The quality of life would also have been much higher.But from a capitalistic perspective this would have resulted in a smaller workforce and probably a more demanding and difficult one to control.So immigration to keep the social cost and taxes down whilst providing cheaper labour and larger profits and better control of the workforce with ever widening disparities in wealth and income has been our experience.All this dispite the objections of the existing population who instinctively,and not for racialist reasons, realised the longer term implications.Over the years propaganda,manipulation and repression, somtimes subtle and sometimes less so have weakened the objections and we now face the prospect of 70-100 million people by mid century. We will need to continue to concrete over naturally fertile ,well watered land ,whilst in other countries a fortune will be spent to try and make land productive.

What would be the point of making more of Australia habitable and agriculturally more productive unless the religious,cultural and poverty problems of the potential immigrants are resolved.If this was not sorted first they would simply overpopulate Australia.Just look at India ,Bangladeash ect they do not constrain their populations even when at bursting point and make up a disproportionate part of the population growth in the Uk in recent years.The sub continent will overpopulate everywhere the diaspra is allowed to reach;just look at fiji.

A more viable approach to overpopulation would be to prevent those populations whose beliefs ect cause them to disregard the negative impact of continuos high fertility from disgorging their excess

population elsewhere,until such irresponsibility is curtailed.

While we have capitalism we must face the hard fact that everything is about supply and demand(baring cartels )and this goes for human beings;the more there are the less individuals are generally worth.We cannot protect ourselves while people can be "imported "from other places and we are all beggered. With capitalism there are always cheaper places to get labour or exploit populations;we need to realistically resist this and not be brainwashed into accepting our own demise by these ruthless tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
A more viable approach to overpopulation would be to prevent those populations whose beliefs ect cause them to disregard the negative impact of continuos high fertility from disgorging their excess

population elsewhere,until such irresponsibility is curtailed.

While we have capitalism we must face the hard fact that everything is about supply and demand(baring cartels )and this goes for human beings;the more there are the less individuals are generally worth.We cannot protect ourselves while people can be "imported "from other places and we are all beggered. With capitalism there are always cheaper places to get labour or exploit populations;we need to realistically resist this and not be brainwashed into accepting our own demise by these ruthless tactics.

I agree, Bill.

Overpopulation is an urgent global crisis. An economic system based on endless growth can't be sustained so rampant capitalism will need to be confronted otherwise we'll be history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...