Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Conspiracy Against Socialism


Recommended Posts

Guest David Guyatt

The Christian Church has numerous splinter factions, much like the political left. Some of these are devious, dangerous and about as peace-loving as angry king cobra. The bulk of Christians are, to my mind, honest, caring and ordinary people trying to get through life in way that is fair, moral and ethical (as with socialists). It doesn't always work out that was, of course.

Interpreting dogma is a habit (excuse pun) of Christians and Socialists alike. It is a function of the human psyche to find cracks and loopholes to avoid restraint.

I suspect that Blair's decision not to come clean about his Catholicism - quite apart from his position in a protestant country - may have had more to do with his probable affiliation to the bloody awful Opus Dei, than considerations of what the Pope said about Iraq. Hutchison, in his book "Kindom Come" stated that Le Cercle was the political/active arm of Opus Dei. He is not alone in this.

Since this is not the right place to do it, I am going to star a new thread on the connections between Opus Dei and Le Cercle, with an excellent (but lengthy) article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This would also extend to anything involving a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to "speed things along" Dictatorship either from the left or the right would have me grabbing my pitchfork, ting bale-twine around my trousers at knee-leve to keep the ferrets out - and heading for London, or Clacton, or Maldon, and burying that pitchfork in said dictator's forehead.

Hi David

Just a small point, but the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" mustn't be taken literally here. It doesn't actually mean a dictatorship (military or otherwise) OVER the proletariat but a dictatorship BY the proletariat, as opposed to the present dominance of CAPITAL.

At present, despite our reservations regarding the level of democracy we 'enjoy', it is not yet a dictatorship (as we know it); but clearly there is a dictatorship of CAPITAL. That's to say that the tiny elite who own most of the means of production have enormous economic (and therefore political) power which is then used to further strengthen their agenda. At present we are mere spectators who get to shout "yes" or "no" every five years!

A 'dictatorship' of the proletariat would be infinitely more democratic as it would be based on the needs and agenda of the millions rather than the few. Not only that but it would have to include the active participation of those millions in the day to day running of their world: that's what "dictatorship of the proletariat" really means.

Bernie

Edited by Bernie Laverick
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fair to say

1) socialism has not failed it has not been tried.

2) The serious question is whether capitalism can succeed - the present global crisis in food prices and finance markets should put a serious question mark over this.

3) It is a downright lie to equate socialism and Stalinism.

4) Even the most rabid republican is noticing that prices are rising faster than income and kids are being killed off in wars from which the corporations seek to profit. So they will vote for the Socialist alternative when it is presented to them even a rather tame "socialist" like Bernard Sanders

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it"

Karl Marx

So, how do we change it guys? How is to be achieved in present circumstances? What as individuals can you do to bring about change?

“Philosophy is to the real world as masturbation is to sex”

Karl Marx

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is fair to say

1) socialism has not failed it has not been tried.

2) The serious question is whether capitalism can succeed - the present global crisis in food prices and finance markets should put a serious question mark over this.

3) It is a downright lie to equate socialism and Stalinism.

4) Even the most rabid republican is noticing that prices are rising faster than income and kids are being killed off in wars from which the corporations seek to profit. So they will vote for the Socialist alternative when it is presented to them even a rather tame "socialist" like Bernard Sanders

Some intersting points Derek but I have to strongly disagree with point 2 The serious question is whether capitalism can succeed - the present global crisis in food prices and finance markets should put a serious question mark over this.

There will be no final collapse, no apocalyptic judgement day or ultimate crisis. And what's going to happen? Would we all wake up one morning to discover that the crisis of capitalism has reached such proportions that from today it is abolished. If only it could be that easy. If all we had to do was wait until things got so bad we'd just casually skip an evolutionary step and zoom straight into socialism. It's never going to happen because capitalism will never just 'come to an end' no matter how many starve, or how many die in wars.

No Derek, this is a fight that has to be won. People have to be convinced and that will take events events events. Rough lessons are going to be learned over the coming period as the world tips into yet another global catastrophe and people try to make sense of why their lives are spiralling out of control.

WHO has the power to change things? Who are the most powerful group of people on the planet? I say it is the battalions and legions of organised labour who have yet to draw the conclusions that this system can never provide even the basics of a good life for their families. Soon they will have to draw those conclusions and and take the appropriate political action. Overthrowing governments is easy. It's what you replace it with that matters. Within seven days a unified action of strikes and civil disobediance would bring even the toughest government to its knees. Look at the USSR, Rumania, E Germany etc... brought down by mass action of all those who DO everything in this world. When they decide NOT to then that world comes to a full stop.

No the question isn't HOW we change direction: it's WHICH direction do we take. But when I look at the deluge of so called Trotskyite and Marxist sectarian grouplets (SWP Socialist Party, AWL, CPGB et al...) all strutting and posing (with their 50 or so membership) and squabbling with each other it just makes me despair. Let's hope this generation of young workers sweep these old fashioned and outdated organisations to one side and build a genuine party of the working class - one that they deserve and have been denied so many times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is fair to say

4) Even the most rabid republican is noticing that prices are rising faster than income and kids are being killed off in wars from which the corporations seek to profit. So they will vote for the Socialist alternative when it is presented to them even a rather tame "socialist" like Bernard Sanders

Not in the USA. Not in time enough to save the country. The rest of the world will have to go on without the USA, sad to say. The leader of the world, is now, at best the follower. More likely the [de]spoiler.

Hi Peter,

Who knows what conclusions will be drawn by millions of people in the coming downturn/recession: I know this, that the American working class has a proud history of struggle and is probably the most powerful force on earth...including their military. No army could control millions of citizens acting as one voice, and many of its ranks would naturally sympathise with the people anyway. The elite fear this like we all fear death! Their aim at all times is to split the pack up, atomise them, attack their organisations (unions), give them distractions, sport, tabloids, sex, sexism, violence, shiny xmas baubles...anything...as long as it dilutes their attention; as long as it doesn't lead them to the conclusion that together, they are a mighty power, that united they don't have to accept the lies and the corruption and the wars and the starvation: they never want people to learn that as ONE acting towards a common goal things CAN be changed. And that is the biggest conspiracy ever.

Maybe when that conclusion is drawn by a critical mass, and these things tend to move at alarming speed, we could very well see a total shake up of the USA.

And then the world truly will shake!

Bernie

Edited by Bernie Laverick
Link to post
Share on other sites
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it"

Karl Marx

So, how do we change it guys? How is to be achieved in present circumstances? What as individuals can you do to bring about change?

You are quite right Maggie. Unlike many former student radicals, I am not a political cynic. (I believe a lot of people use cynicism as a cover for conservatism). I still believe that a successful revolution is possible. Nor do I believe that affluence is necessary a major handicap to revolutionary change. Revolutions usually take place after a period of improvement in the standard of living following by a sharp drop. There is a psychological reason for this. The improvement in the standard of living increases expectations.

For example, the Peasants Revolt in 1381 only took place because the period following the Black Death saw a rapid increase in wages plus reforms that made workers feel more important. However, the introduction of wage controls and the flat-rate poll tax damaged expectations of a prosperous future. The peasants had endured centuries of extreme poverty but had come nowhere near a revolutionary consciousness. The peasants also needed the sermons of John Ball and his followers to create a revolutionary consciousness.

The 1789 French Revolution also followed a period of reform. However, it was too little too late and the masses were able to overthrow the monarchy. But like the Peasants Revolt, success was only temporary and even though the ruling elite learnt important political lessons that resulted in genuine reforms, they had little difficulty regaining control.

The rebellion of 1905 in Russia led to reforms that improved expectations and with the administration unable to effectively run the country due to the First World War, revolutionaries had room to work and eventually overthrew capitalism. As most Marxists at the time, the Russian Revolution was doomed to failure because the masses lacked a fully developed political consciousness. This is why Lenin’s original proposal for an uprising in 1917 was rejected by so many Russian communists. They were aware that the “so-called” vanguard would turn into a military dictatorship. As Rosa Luxemburg pointed out at the time, wars are not good times to have revolutions.

War was also the catalyst to the overthrow of capitalist states in Eastern Europe in 1945. However, these so-called revolutions were imposed on the people by a foreign power, supported by a very small communist parties in the host country. These revolutions were always unpopular and once reforms were introduced in the late 1980s it was just a matter of time before the system collapsed.

The Chinese communist revolution was also a result of the Second World War. It also depended in a revolutionary vanguard that soon developed into a military dictatorship. However, there is no doubt that a state capitalist system does have economic advantages over a free-market capitalism and at the current time a socialist revolution in the USA is more likely than a socialist revolution in China.

It could be argued that we are entering revolutionary times. A period of affluence is going to be followed by a period of economic decline. When this happened in the past it triggered off rampant imperialism (you give to the workers wealth taken from the undeveloped world). Whereas capitalists are now investing their wealth in the emerging economies, this money is longer finding its way back to the workers in the developed world.

Will the masses develop a revolutionary consciousness during this crisis? Or will they respond with apathy (internalized anger). We are already seeing signs of massive disillusionment with the current political system. However, at the current time, I fear that the people might well follow the example of the people of Germany, Spain, Italy and Portugal of the 1930s. In every case, there was a substantial number of people that supported the socialist alternative. In Spain it came close to success (defeated, interestingly by the actions of Stalin and western politicians).

Are we about to enter a period of fascism? If so, it will be the ultimate revolution. I hope and believe we will stop this happening. Maybe the internet and websites like this forum will play an important role in this. For while the internet exists, the ruling elite, for the first time in history, cannot completely control mass communications.

Link to post
Share on other sites
John - with respect, what happened at the end of WW2 in Eastern European states such as Poland, (where my father was born in 1933 and then ethnically cleansed to Siberia by Stalin as a 7-year-old), is hugely complex, but I wouldn't categorize it as a communist revolution.

I am sorry if I gave that impression. I also do not see it as a communist revolution. Nor do I see what happened in Russia in 1917 as a communist revolution. In my view it was an example of state capitalism. However, in 1945 members of the communist party were willing to be used to set up a state capitalist system. Members of the communist party also became the new ruling elite. This has been the pattern of all so-called communist revolutions since 1917.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest David Guyatt
Unlike many former student radicals, I am not a political cynic. (I believe a lot of people use cynicism as a cover for conservatism).

The implication being that if you're not of the left, then you are, by default, a closet conservative.

This strikes me as being very linear thinking.

Personally, I am a convinced and adamant political cynic. What I see is that the entire political system has been - at the very least - hijacked by the elite. I am not even convinced that it was ever anything but a plaything of the elite, created to mitigate and thus harness periods of collective unrest at the inherent lack of equality we see all around us. In other words the political system is a rigged roulette wheel.

If you are aware in advance that casino's are heavily weighted in their own favour; will fleece you at every turn, then by entering and playing -- and then losing as expected - is a foolhardy act that merely perpetrates the gaming community's monopoly. If everyone voted with their feet and stayed away from the tables, the monopoly would collapse overnight.

Extending this analogy to the political system is valid, I think. However, the clear and obvious danger is that faced with imminent collapse, governments would simply discard the velvet glove known as "democracy" and reveal the steel fist hidden there and then wield it in all it's true ugliness.

But at least one would no longer be able to turn a Nelson eye to reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest David Guyatt
John - with respect, what happened at the end of WW2 in Eastern European states such as Poland, (where my father was born in 1933 and then ethnically cleansed to Siberia by Stalin as a 7-year-old), is hugely complex, but I wouldn't categorize it as a communist revolution.

I am sorry if I gave that impression. I also do not see it as a communist revolution. Nor do I see what happened in Russia in 1917 as a communist revolution. In my view it was an example of state capitalism. However, in 1945 members of the communist party were willing to be used to set up a state capitalist system. Members of the communist party also became the new ruling elite. This has been the pattern of all so-called communist revolutions since 1917.

Interesting comments.

This is probably for a different thread... However, my own view is that precisely what happened in each of the Eastern European countries which ended up behind the "Iron Curtain" needs to be analyzed on an individual basis, and of course what is now the Ukraine wasn't even a nation state.

In the case of Poland there were no Polish SS or German army divisions (unlike many of her neighbours), a highly active Polish resistance which was betrayed by Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, and a redrawing of the map which meant almost half of post-WW2 Poland was actually pre-war Prussia and Silesia. WW2 Poland was also where the Nazis chose to locate many of their concentration camps and perpetrate the Holocaust. And the USSR (sometimes by turning a blind eye) ensured what had been pre-WW2 eastern Poland was brutally ethnically cleansed whilst systematically executing members of the Polish intelligentsia and officer class. All in all, pretty horrific for a people who were allied with the victors of WW2...

It's also interesting that most of the Gehlen/Gladio/extreme anti-communist networks were recruited by the OSS/CIA/British intelligence from the ranks of the White Russians, Ukrainians, Croatians, Romanians and Hungarians who had collaborated with the Nazis. Whereas those eastern Europeans who had fought the Nazis were mostly either ignored or sold down the river.

A true betrayal.

A complete disgrace.

There is a pub in East Haningfield that I was first introduced to (many years ago) by a former minor Polish aristo who fled Poland to escape the Russians after being released from one of the nazi camps. A wonderful gentle - man (now sadly dead) who always insisted that his wife - who also suffered in the camps - maintain an overflowing bowl of fresh fruit in their house -- whether it was eaten or not (very often not, too).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlike many former student radicals, I am not a political cynic. (I believe a lot of people use cynicism as a cover for conservatism).

The implication being that if you're not of the left, then you are, by default, a closet conservative.

This strikes me as being very linear thinking.

Personally, I am a convinced and adamant political cynic. What I see is that the entire political system has been - at the very least - hijacked by the elite. I am not even convinced that it was ever anything but a plaything of the elite, created to mitigate and thus harness periods of collective unrest at the inherent lack of equality we see all around us. In other words the political system is a rigged roulette wheel.

If you are aware in advance that casino's are heavily weighted in their own favour; will fleece you at every turn, then by entering and playing -- and then losing as expected - is a foolhardy act that merely perpetrates the gaming community's monopoly. If everyone voted with their feet and stayed away from the tables, the monopoly would collapse overnight.

Extending this analogy to the political system is valid, I think. However, the clear and obvious danger is that faced with imminent collapse, governments would simply discard the velvet glove known as "democracy" and reveal the steel fist hidden there and then wield it in all it's true ugliness.

But at least one would no longer be able to turn a Nelson eye to reality.

This is well put, David.

I particularly like your casino metaphor.

The powers that be in the business arena dictate the course and agenda of public discussion through the mainstream media, so that, even if you are being politically observant and you participate in the mainstream media's political offerings, you are marched lemming-like into the topic that it has pre-ordained for your consumption.

The ruling class is now best illustrated with the insufferable global warming adds showing Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich together on one add and Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson on the other.

Who would look to any of them for guidance on anything?

And guess what, the green industry is to the current business climate (no pun intended) that Y2K (remember that?) was to the computer and technology industries 10 years ago.

It's where the money is, to paraphrase bank robber Willie Sutton (when a reporter asked him why he robbed banks).

So when I see political adversaries looking out for my interests, I discern that they are bought and paid for by the same lobbying interests.

They tell me how I should conserve energy (no doubt, an important objective for several valid reasons), while they jet around in private aircraft (Nancy Pelosi wanted a Boeing 737 when she became Speaker) and live in 20,000 sq. ft. homes (John Edwards' home is actually 28,000 sq. ft.) and buy their penance with "carbon credits".

As humorist Dave Berry would say, I am not making this up.

I think that business influence in political matters is the reason for the current paucity of trustworthiness and leadership at the Presidential candidate level.

Edited by Christopher Hall
Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I am a convinced and adamant political cynic. What I see is that the entire political system has been - at the very least - hijacked by the elite. I am not even convinced that it was ever anything but a plaything of the elite, created to mitigate and thus harness periods of collective unrest at the inherent lack of equality we see all around us. In other words the political system is a rigged roulette wheel.

I wouldn't disagree with you David but what is the be done? (as Lenin said)

Do we work within the system to try to change it?

Do we boycott the current system and build another of our own?

Do we throw the towel in and resign ourselves to our fate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest David Guyatt
Personally, I am a convinced and adamant political cynic. What I see is that the entire political system has been - at the very least - hijacked by the elite. I am not even convinced that it was ever anything but a plaything of the elite, created to mitigate and thus harness periods of collective unrest at the inherent lack of equality we see all around us. In other words the political system is a rigged roulette wheel.

I wouldn't disagree with you David but what is the be done? (as Lenin said)

Do we work within the system to try to change it?

Do we boycott the current system and build another of our own?

Do we throw the towel in and resign ourselves to our fate?

Maggie, never throw the towel in, I say. That isn't an option.

But it seems to me that the first step simply is recognition that the current system is irretrievable and worthless. Once this has been recognized far and wide (no small or mean feat) the the system will shrivel up from lack of use. We will, by that time (assuming it happens in the first place) be faced with options. The concern is, as I stated earlier, that outright fascism will fill the void -- but since we're heading in that direction already, it will merely mean facing the reality rather than sleepwalking with the spin. Once people are aware of how things really work, it will be a Jack who can't be put back in the box. Then, with hope, something new that is truly representative and fair might arise.

But the powers that be won't let this happen without an almighty battle. Their current ambition is to return civilization to the middle ages, where we will be serfs tugging our forelock to the lord of the manor, working his fields till we drop - in exchange for our daily gruel.

As you can see I don't have all the answers. I probably don't even have a few. But I am convinced that as it stands, the system is so unrepresentative, so unbalanced and unfair, and so beyond hope - that it is worthless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I am a convinced and adamant political cynic. What I see is that the entire political system has been - at the very least - hijacked by the elite. I am not even convinced that it was ever anything but a plaything of the elite, created to mitigate and thus harness periods of collective unrest at the inherent lack of equality we see all around us. In other words the political system is a rigged roulette wheel.

I wouldn't disagree with you David but what is the be done? (as Lenin said)

Do we work within the system to try to change it?

Do we boycott the current system and build another of our own?

Do we throw the towel in and resign ourselves to our fate?

Hi Maggie!

I'm afraid as individuals there is very little we can do. After 300 hundreds years of intense capitalist competition, most of which has been enormously progressive - certainly as far as developing the forces of production are concerned - we have reached a logical conclusion; fewer and fewer people own more and more of the wealth. It was always going to be that way. It couldn't possibly be otherwise.

I wonder at what point it became expedient of that few to completely sew up the political stystem in order to preserve/extend their powerful and privelleged position?

As we can witness, this elite (who control the press, the army, the police, the education system, the political system etc...) will fight like vicious tigers to preserve their dominant economic position. And their number one enemy is US! Because we can stop it at any time: and they know it! It is a secret war, a war fought by all those who have everything to lose against the rest of us who would have everything to gain. The weapons they use are powerful. Their strategy deadly! Scatter the masses and isolate them.

What did Thatcher once famously splutter: "There is no society; just individuals and their families." This gives a crystal clear view of that strategy. You're on your own! Live with it! Compete hard with your neighbour, your workmates and your friends: keep your head down and just look after yourselves. Throw into this rigged 'Free' Market stock, a few twists of racism, a good dollop of sexism, fold in some whipped patriotism, squirt with a bit of fear and allow to simmer until near boiling point. And that's where the Labour Party and the Democrats come in... Their job being to turn the heat down for a while.

How can it be changed and what to?

Sorry Maggie, I haven't a clue!

Bernie

Link to post
Share on other sites
On a different note, I first encountered the writings of George Bernard Shaw about 30 years ago in a book that had long quoted excerpts on various topics. (I've not been able to locate it at the library since then -- possibly a casualty of book-burnings during the Reagan Administration.) At the time I was surprised to find "socialism/communism" being described in terms of municipal governments and community-owned public enterprises -- public utilities, fire departments, etc. Since there's a town in Indiana that long billed itself as the home of the world's only community-owned hydroplane ("Miss Madison"), and since the NFL's Green Bay Packers are still today a community-owned franchise, I was concerned as an American at all the evidence of Communism in our very midst.

So I think one of the main problems is education. Not really in the formal sense, but in terms of availability of information -- for instance, about socialism and what it means. Europeans take it largely for granted, I think, in the same way that all westerners take (the meaning, value and utility of) democracy for granted; but Americans have been conditioned to believe Socialism is pretty much the same as Devil Worship. Today it's hard to find anti-democratic arguments that can be taken seriously, but every election cycle in the US comes with echoes of the same anti-socialist arguments we've heard for at least a century (the word "liberal" meaning the same as "socialist," "Communist," "traitor," "necrophiliac," etc, etc).

Socialism has not always been a dirty word. Eugene Debs, the Socialist Party candidate, got 897,011 votes in 1912. In 1913 the socialist journal, Appeal to Reason reached a circulation of over 760,000.

As a socialist, Debs believed that the First World War had been caused by the imperialist competitive system. Between 1914 and 1917 Debs made several speeches explaining why he believed the United States should not join the war. After the USA declared war on the Central Powers in 1917, several Socialist Party members were arrested for violating the Espionage Act.

After making a speech in Canton, Ohio, on 16th June, 1918, criticizing the Espionage Act, Debs was arrested and sentenced to ten years in Atlanta Penitentiary. He was still in prison when as the presidential candidate of the Socialist Party, he received 919,799 votes in 1920. His program included proposals for improved labour conditions, housing and welfare legislation and an increase in the number of people who could vote in elections.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdebs.htm

Then came the Red Scare. Alexander M. Palmer, the attorney general, made J. Edgar Hoover his special assistant. Hoover was given responsibility of heading a new section that had been formed to gather evidence on "revolutionary and ultra-revolutionary groups". Over the next couple of years Hoover had the task of organizing the arrest and deportation of suspected communists in America.

Hoover, influenced by his work at the Library of Congress, decided to create a massive card index of people with left-wing political views. Over the next few years 450,000 names were indexed and detailed biographical notes were written up on the 60,000 that Hoover considered the most dangerous. Hoover then advised Palmer to have these people rounded up and deported.

On 7th November, 1919, the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution, over 10,000 suspected communists and anarchists were arrested in twenty-three different cities. However, the vast majority of these people were American citizens and had to be eventually released. However, Hoover now had the names of hundreds of lawyers who were willing to represent radicals in court. These were now added to his growing list of names in his indexed database.

Hoover decided he needed a high profile case to help his campaign against subversives. He selected Emma Goldman, as he had been particularly upset by her views on birth control, free love and religion. Goldman had also been imprisoned for two years for opposing America's involvement in the First World War. This was a subject that Hoover felt very strongly about, even though it was never willing to discuss how he had managed to avoid being drafted.

Hoover knew it would be a difficult task having Goldman deported. She had been living in the United States for thirty-four years and both her father and husband were both citizens of the United States. In court Hoover argued that Goldman's speeches had inspired Leon Czolgosz to assassinate President William McKinley. Hoover won his case and Goldman, along with 247 other people, were deported to Russia.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAhooverE.htm

Hoover's persecution of people with socialist views had the desired effect. As a result of this Red Scare people became worried about subscribing to left-wing journals and the Appeal to Reason, which was selling 760,000 copies a week before the First World War, was forced to close in November, 1922. The membership of the Communist Party, estimated to have been 80,000 before the raids, fell to less that 6,000.

The same was true of the Socialist Party and its membership fell to less than 2,000. Norman Thomas, who became the party's presidential candidate in 1928, 1932 and 1936. Although easily defeated, Thomas had the satisfaction of seeing Franklin D. Roosevelt introduce several measures that he had advocated during his presidential campaigns.

In 1951, the famous novelist, Upton Sinclair, and member of the Socialist Party, wrote a letter to Norman Thomas: "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jupton.htm

Link to post
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...