Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Promotion of Public Discord [Vincent Salandria]


Recommended Posts

While this article is very old, I think it is very timely and a key to understanding the divergence between mass media depictions of events and 'events in real time' as well as other areas.

The Promotion of Domestic Discord

Vincent J. Salandria, Attorney

Philadelphia, Pa.

(Based on the last portion of an address at the conference of the New England Branch of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, October 23, 1971; published at the request of the author.)

In the article "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Model for Explanation" which was published in the December, 1971, issue of "Computers and Automation", I said:

We must be alert to the CIA agents who would promote the polarization of our society. We must examine the evidence which indicates that fake revolutionaries, who are inciting insurrection in our cities, have had their pockets and minds stuffed by the CIA.

Is there any evidentiary support for such a design of social engineering having been foisted on us by the CIA and its conduits through the foundations?

The Ocean Hill-Brownsville Dispute

One of the most polarizing events in our recent history was the Ocean Hill-Brownsville dispute over decentralization and community control which led to the New York teachers' strike of 1968. Martin Mayer said of this strike:

The New York teachers' strike of 1968 seems to me the worst disaster my native city has experienced in my lifetime --- comparable in its economic impact to an earthquake that would destroy Manhattan below Chambers Street, much worse in its social effect than a major race riot. Worst of all, the strike will very probably reduce to the condition of a Boston or an Alabama, or some mixture of the two, a school system that was wretchedly ill --- organized and weakly led but relatively alert intellectually and by no means so completely ineffective as it has become fashionable to say --- and that was almost the only real hope the city could offer for the future of tens of thousands of Negro and Puerto Rican children.

Ford Foundation Provocation

Naomi Levine described how the Ford Foundation under McGeorge Bundy used Ocean Hill-Brownsville to deliberately provoke a confrontation:

Why did the Ocean Hill governing board order the "termination of employment" of the nineteen teachers and administrators in Ocean Hill in such a peremptory manner and at a time when the State Legislature was considering various proposals that would have enacted into law many of the Bundy report recommendations? Why did the union react so strongly?

The answers to these questions go to the heart of the controversy. For it is clear that if Rhody McCoy had merely wanted to move some unwanted teachers out of his district he could have done so without provoking the U.F.T. and angering vast segments of the general public. He could, for example, have quietly requested the Board of Education to transfer the teachers a few at a time rather than attracting public attention by sending telegrams to nineteen teachers and administrators without warning or other prior notice. There is, moreover, strong reason to believe that Superintendent Donovan had told Mr. McCoy that if he sent him, in confidence, the names of the teachers he wanted transferred, the Board of Personnel would have handled the matter without further incident. Apparently, Mr. McCoy declined this offer. The conclusion is inescapable that the Ocean Hill governing board wanted a confrontation with the Board of Education in order to fix its powers and responsibilities once and for all, and that it created the situation to provoke such confrontation.

The New York Civil Liberties Union pamphlet, highly sympathetic to Ocean Hill, supported this conclusion, albeit unwittingly. It indicated that the $44,000 of Ford Foundation planning money had run out in the fall of 1967 and that Ocean Hill was not going to receive a previously promised additional grant of $250,000 from Ford until the local board's powers and authority had been defined and agreed upon by the Board of Education ...

Howard I. Kalodner, professor of law at New York University and legal counsel to the Bundy committee and to the Ocean Hill governing board, has confirmed the confrontation theory. "If they had asked me, I would have probably tried to dissuade them or at least picked and chose more among those nineteen names," he has stated. "But they were looking for a confrontation. They had to make a display with the community and with the central Board. [2]

Shutting Down New York's Educational System

McGeorge Bundy's Ford Foundation's experiment caused New York City to shut down its educational system. That city became polarized: new-black militant radicals against old-left radicals, black trade unionists against anti-union black-power advocates, black against Jew, black against white, striker against non-striker, and ACLU civil libertarians against seekers of due process.

Martin Mayer puts the following question regarding Ocean Hill-Brownsville and the Ford Foundation's social experimentation in that district:

Not the least of the political questions left dangling at the end of the tragedy of the teachers' strikes is the best way to make tax-exempt foundations responsible for the consequences of their actions. [3]

Martin Mayer says the following concerning the Bundy Report which precipitated the Ocean Hill-Brownsville confrontation:

The Bundy Report on decentralization contains one inexcusable folly --- inexcusable because ... Bundy ... recognized it as folly ... that communities can 'unite' around the issue of education. In fact, communities inevitably divide about the issue of education. [4]

Edith Kermit Roosevelt said about McGeorge Bundy's provocateurism as head of the Ford Foundation:

A new political alliance is being forged in this country between the super-rich and the super-poor --- especially the alienated and activist members of minority groups.

The Ford Foundation, under the aggressive leadership of McGeorge Bundy, is providing the major thrust for this power bloc ... This is a dangerous game but it doesn't seem to worry those members of the 'Eastern Establishment' who are involved. They're sure that no matter what happens they'll still be on top.

The Ford Foundation's support of provocateurs and revolutionaries throughout the nation is raising numerous eyebrows. Many believe Bundy, former coordinator of intelligence for President Kennedy, is fostering a new political alliance.

Its effect, at the moment, appears to be the destruction of the American constitutional system. The Foundation seems to be bypassing the legally constituted federal bureaucracy, Congress and state and local governments in order to build a movement of revolutionary proletarians. [5]

The Ford Foundation

The Ford Foundation funded the autobiography by Huey P. Newton. [6] Ford Foundation's Pacifica educational radio has featured regular news commentaries by identified Communists and Black Panthers, tapes made by Radio Hanoi, Red Chinese propaganda and advocacy of blowing up police stations and fire houses. Over a Pacifica station on December 26, 1968 and January 23, 1969, Tyrone Woods said, in part:

What Hitler did to six million Jews is nothing in terms of what has been done to black folks over hundreds of years. ... As far as I am concerned, more power to Hitler. Hitler didn't make enough lampshades out of them. [7]

Mexican Americans

Congressman Henry Gonzalez of Texas complained that the Ford Foundation had promoted racism among his people, Mexican-Americans. He related how the Ford Foundation made a grant of $630,000 to the Southwest Council for LaRaza. He said:

The Ford Foundation wanted to create new leadership, and in fact the new leaders it has created daily proclaim that existing leadership is no good ...

... the president of MAYO, ... likes to threaten to 'kill' what he terms 'gringos' if all else fails ...

... I must come to the sad conclusion that, rather than fostering brotherhood, the foundation has supported the spewings of hate, and rather than creating a new political unit, it has destroyed what little there was ... [8]

Coleman McCarthy has very wisely shown the evil and cynicism behind the approach used by McGeorge Bundy. He points out the only legitimate function that the intellectual should play in dealing with ethnics and racism is to:

... explain that the blacks and white working class are actually in the same urban fix together. Instead of letting them fight each other for useless inner-city leftovers, the intellectuals could act as a referee, creating a black-white coalition based on hard, mutual needs, not any sentimental notions of integration. [9]

Experiments with Ethnics

I feel that McGeorge Bundy's social engineering experiments with ethnics are designed to cause this country to unravel under a systematic program of polarization. Where the foundations leave off, the government agencies directly involve themselves in provocateur attempts to splinter this nation. Senator Edward Kennedy has expressed his fear of the government's efforts at crisis creation. He complained:

Now I fear that we are entering another era of crisis, an era of inaction and retrogression and repression ...

Growing use of domestic spies --- in schools, in political groups, at public meetings, of informants who sometimes help to foment the very acts they are supposed to be investigating. [10]

Congressman William Scherle of Iowa in answer to the question of how serious the problem of radicals and revolutionaries on government payroll has become said:

The situation is unbelievable. It runs rampant throughout the country. It almost appears that the poverty agencies are seeking out the worst sort of militants. [11]

Police Provocateurs

Karl Meyer, chairman of the Chicago Peace Council, said on the question of American political intelligence infiltration of his group:

At our meetings they (police agents) invariably took the most militant positions, trying to provoke the movement from its nonviolent force to the wildest kind of ventures. They were about our most active members. [12]

Frank Donner says of intelligence provocation:

There are powerful reasons for viewing provocation as the handmaiden of infiltration, even when it is no part of a planned intelligence strategy. A merely passive, 'cool' infiltrator-observer cannot hope to play more than a lowly 'Jimmy Higgins' role in the target group, if he gains entry at all. In order to enhance his usefulness, he must penetrate planning circles by becoming highly active. Moreover, the pressure to produce results in the form of concrete evidence of illegal activity often drives the infiltrator into provocative acts ... [13]

Emergence of Radical Protest

Now, I am not suggesting that every radical and violent act in our society is the direct consequence of foundation or governmental funding. There are many disillusioned youths who are easily induced to follow the provocateurs. Former Nixon White House aide, Daniel P. Moynihan, explained this well:

One of the defining qualities of the period of current history that began, roughly, with the assassination of President Kennedy has been the emergence of widespread, radical protest on the part of American youth. The generation was already marked 'by the belief that its government is capable of performing abhorrent deeds.'

The matter may be put simply. For a long period the distrustful responses of youth, and of others of course, to national events and the seeming course of national policy was essentially rational. Much begins, more than we yet know, with the assassination of President Kennedy. A whole generation was marked --- and in ways deformed --- by the crashing recognition that the world was not a safe or pleasant place at all, that the world was blind, destructive, unheeding.

Then came the war. The same generation learned that things need not be what they seem if they are coming out of Washington. And so outrage and distrust mounted. [14]

Minority Opportunity in Higher Education

But let us not be so outraged as to lose our bearings. Yes, admittedly I have difficulty at times in maintaining my poise. This is especially true when I hear that McGeorge Bundy, the great nephew of A. Lawrence Lowell, one of the murderers of my Italian brothers, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, through Ford Foundation grants will provide aid aimed at increasing minority opportunities in higher education. [15] How ironic that the Ford Foundation which has polluted the urban school systems with its provocateur activities and thereby foreclosed educational opportunities for so many ethnic children, seeks to parade as the ethnics' friend by buying off scholars of ethnic backgrounds!

Edith Kermit Roosevelt describes this process:

The operations in New York City of the Ford Foundation typically illustrate the ruthless tactics used by the foundation's self-described 'elite' in their drive for political power. One of the Ford Foundation's goals has been to fundamentally change the direction and control of New York City's public-school system. City educational institutions provide the Ford Foundation with a vehicle in their drive to control minority and ethnic groups in urban areas through dollars distributed to key personnel who will be beholden to them. [16]

But we must retain our calm in the face of provocation. We must be tranquil even when confronting the irony that the Ford Foundation, which has bought up so many fake revolutionaries, has as its head McGeorge Bundy, who said recently:

We must hope that the angry extremes will be rejected. But if it really does come to a test, the violent left and right are the enemies of all the rest of us. [17]

David Halberstam was correct to quote one of McGeorge Bundy's colleagues as stating that Bundy "... is a very special type, an elitist, part of a certain breed of men whose continuity is to themselves, a line to each other and not the country."

Somehow, McGeorge Bundy appears to feel that money can buy off anyone and everything. Was McGeorge Bundy buying the silence of the aides of Robert Kennedy when the Ford Foundation gave $131,069 to eight members of the staff of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy on November 8, 1968? [19]

Choices for Action

If we are to understand and bring under control the forces which are shaping today's America and are endeavoring to shape its future into a monstrous 1984, we cannot rest with the official version of the killing of President Kennedy. The model of explanation offered in the prior article and this one, it seems to me, explains the available data.

I believe we can and must employ this tool of analysis to learn more about our current-day society. If peace workers seek to bypass the task of understanding the Kennedy assassination in order to take up causes which appear more challenging and more immediately relevant to our society, I would suggest that peace workers are erring in their chosen course of social action.

What is your cherished fight? Civil Rights? Civil Liberties? If John F. Kennedy, a most gifted, rich and popular President, did not have the right or liberty to hide successfully from governmental guns in the United States, then are not civil liberties and civil rights long departed in our country not only for ethnics but all other citizens as well?

Would you, before you study the implications of the Kennedy assassination, seek first to destroy the capitalist system? But was not the capitalist system on November 22, 1963 overthrown by a new class in the United States? Was not Wall Street successfully stormed by way of Dealey Plaza? Did not the intelligence community force upon the financial interests an uncontrolled war machine which eroded American economic power and well being?

Would you first seek to improve our public schools? But the military has usurped for itself the funds required to educate our children. And the intelligence community has deposited provocateurs in at least some of our schools so that the conditions necessary for learning have been, through the ensuing turmoil, destroyed.

Would you first drop out of school, job, and society in order to change the system? There is no place to hide from the power which can gun down a President. Dropping off the face of the earth is your only refuge if you are unwilling to drop into the struggle to wrest our government from the grip of murderers.

Would you seek to join the Communist world? But the Communist world has revealed that it too can accept a frameup in the killing of Kennedy just as easily as it can accept a frameup in the assassination of Kirov.

No, let us not turn away from the horror of the killing of John F. Kennedy. Let us join together, black and white, rich and poor, Jew, gentile, conservative and radical, to tell the truth about the killing of Kennedy. Through this refusal to live a great lie we will come together to understand and love ourselves and our society better. Let us not delay in this union of truth. If we do not join together in the search for truth, then guns backed by cover-story lies will pick us off one by one and ultimately join us together --- in death.

This is the lesson to be learned from the killing of President John F. Kennedy and the overthrow of the Republic of the United States by the CIA.

References

Mayer, Martin, The Teachers Strike, New York, 1968 (New York, Harper Row, 1968), p. 15.

Levine, Naomi, Ocean Hill-Brownsville - A Case History of Schools in Crisis (New York, Popular Library, 199), p. 56.

Mayer, Martin, Op. Cit., p. 118.

Mayer, Martin, All You Know is Facts (New York, Harper Row, 1969), p. 157.

"News and Views," The Sunday Bulletin, Philadelphia, May 11, 1969, p. 5.

Human Events, Dec. 5, 1970.

Barron's, April 6, 1970, p. 10.

Congressional Record - House, April 16, 1969.

Coleman McCarthy, Washington Post, July 14, 1970.

Congressional Record, May 13, 1970, S7112.

Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, March 31, 1971, E2547.

Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, May 6, 1971, E4098.

Ibid., E4097.

Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, June 26, 1970, E5999.

he Philadelphia Inquirer, October 10, 1971, Sec. 4-A.

Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, April 14, 1971, E3075.

Newsweek, May 25, 1970, p. 31.

Halberstam, David, Op . Cit., p. 28.

Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, April 14, 1971, E3074.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the stupid and ignorant will see the Emperors new clothes are invisible!

“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said.

“But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people.

That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist.

there is the vanguard that probes into the wilderness, beating the trails, leaving markers, and there are the surveyors and cartographers who follow with precision, calling back the point.

The independent vanguard does not take orders, but does listen. The followup also does not take orders, but listens, tests and logs choosing which of the trails to follow. It's a union of chaos guided by purpose. All are flexible, sceptical and mobile.

This separates the people from the false emperor

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=917191

"What is rational is real and what is real is rational."--Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

The early 19th century German philosopher, Georg W.F. Hegel is best known for his system of inquiry into the nature of reality. This system is called the dialectic. Now, reading Hegel will confirm some of your worst nightmares about delving into philosophical writing. His work likely made his own contemporaries' eyes glaze over.

Simply put, the dialectical method involves the notion that the form of historical movement (process or progress), is the result of conflicting opposites. This area of Hegel's thought has been broken down in terms of the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Hegel's philosophy of history embraces the concept that a conflict of opposites is a struggle between actual and potential worlds.

A thesis can be seen as a single idea. The idea contains a form of incompleteness that gives rise to the antithesis, a conflicting idea. A third point of view, a synthesis, arises from this conflict. It overcomes the conflict by reconciling the truths contained in the thesis and antithesis at a higher level. The synthesis is a new thesis. It generates a new antithesis, and the process continues until truth is arrived at.

the assassination (which includes the assassination of truth through conspiracy) inevitably seeds its own destruction.

The Emperor never had any clothes to start with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the stupid and ignorant will see the Emperors new clothes are invisible!

“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said.

“But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people.

That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist.

there is the vanguard that probes into the wilderness, beating the trails, leaving markers, and there are the surveyors and cartographers who follow with precision, calling back the point.

The independent vanguard does not take orders, but does listen. The followup also does not take orders, but listens, tests and logs choosing which of the trails to follow. It's a union of chaos guided by purpose. All are flexible, sceptical and mobile.

This separates the people from the false emperor

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=917191

"What is rational is real and what is real is rational."--Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

The early 19th century German philosopher, Georg W.F. Hegel is best known for his system of inquiry into the nature of reality. This system is called the dialectic. Now, reading Hegel will confirm some of your worst nightmares about delving into philosophical writing. His work likely made his own contemporaries' eyes glaze over.

Simply put, the dialectical method involves the notion that the form of historical movement (process or progress), is the result of conflicting opposites. This area of Hegel's thought has been broken down in terms of the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Hegel's philosophy of history embraces the concept that a conflict of opposites is a struggle between actual and potential worlds.

A thesis can be seen as a single idea. The idea contains a form of incompleteness that gives rise to the antithesis, a conflicting idea. A third point of view, a synthesis, arises from this conflict. It overcomes the conflict by reconciling the truths contained in the thesis and antithesis at a higher level. The synthesis is a new thesis. It generates a new antithesis, and the process continues until truth is arrived at.

the assassination (which includes the assassination of truth through conspiracy) inevitably seeds its own destruction.

The Emperor never had any clothes to start with.

John, Fletcher Prouty asserted that there were many Generals at the Pentagon influenced by the Hegelian Dialectic.

Any thoughts [Response not mean't as a criticism or endorsement of Hegel's work].

There is an old adage "We may be through with the past, but the past is not through with us."

Paraphased as sometimes ignorance is anything but bliss

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that makes sense in where Marx diverges from Hegel, (both having diverged from Empiricism.)

Hegelian dialectics becomes the acceptable Capitalist answer to Marx's dialectics.

__________________________________________________

http://www.wsu.edu/~tcook/doc/HegelMarxComparisons.htm

Hegel-- praises the modern or liberalized European state as the actualization of the idea of freedom, to be preserved as the institutional expression of the level of progress in ethics. The state is not a class partisan force but rather the conciliator of all "estates." Law is the expression of the universal will.

Marx-- If Hegel praised old revolutions only to prevent new ones, Marx saw all of history as class struggle, and looked forward to revolutionary change (which would be violent if the ruling classes resisted, even "breaking the contract" if they lost democratic elections).

So it makes sense that a scholarly honesty dealing with Marx within the constraints of a capitalist system looks to Hegel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marx, Hegel, Nietzsche, Darwin, Freud, Wundt, and Jung all were disciples of the slaveringly insane asthmatic runt John Locke, who poisoned every philosophical/religious/mental well in existence before he regrettably was allowed to die a natural death.

However much any one of them "took issue" with some of his concepts, every one of them took some portion of his malignant madness and spread the deadly plague to every crevice in the world. One of Locke's chief disciples was Wundt, who made Locke's utterly moronic "blank slate" theory of the human mind a platform from which to launch all the horrors of Rudin and the Nazi torture and death machines, the direct ancestors of "eugenics" and Helms and Gottlieb's MK/ULTRA with "Jolly" West and the rest of the CIA's still-standing invisible army of psychiatrists, including their links to Eli Lilly and the LSD vats of the 50s and 60s, followed by the current massive campaign to convince every man, woman, and child on the planet that they are poor victims of "depression" needing chemical "balancing."

One little tentacle of this diseased beast that hasn't been pulled on hard enough yet is Mary Bancroft's close association with Jung from 1941 to 1945 (at least) while she also was the cooing mistress in Switzerland and surrounds of Allen Dulles. Bancroft was the life-long friend of Ruth Forbes Paine (not Ruth Hyde Paine—just more CIA twosies), mother of Michael Paine.

This is the lineage of the madness that has made the entire world a Bedlam without walls, with only the most deranged and psychopathic allowed to run the asylum.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marx, Hegel, Nietzsche, Darwin, Freud, Wundt, and Jung all were disciples of the slaveringly insane asthmatic runt John Locke, who poisoned every philosophical/religious/mental well in existence before he regrettably was allowed to die a natural death.

However much any one of them "took issue" with some of his concepts, every one of them took some portion of his malignant madness and spread the deadly plague to every crevice in the world. One of Locke's chief disciples was Wundt, who made Locke's utterly moronic "blank slate" theory of the human mind a platform from which to launch all the horrors of Rudin and the Nazi torture and death machines, the direct ancestors of "eugenics" and Helms and Gottlieb's MK/ULTRA with "Jolly" West and the rest of the CIA's still-standing invisible army of psychiatrists, including their links to Eli Lilly and the LSD vats of the 50s and 60s, followed by the current massive campaign to convince every man, woman, and child on the planet that they are poor victims of "depression" needing chemical "balancing."

One little tentacle of this diseased beast that hasn't been pulled on hard enough yet is Mary Bancroft's close association with Jung from 1941 to 1945 (at least) while she also was the cooing mistress in Switzerland and surrounds of Allen Dulles. Bancroft was the life-long friend of Ruth Forbes Paine (not Ruth Hyde Paine—just more CIA twosies), mother of Michael Paine.

This is the lineage of the madness that has made the entire world a Bedlam without walls, with only the most deranged and psychopathic allowed to run the asylum.

Ashton Gray

If only we could all be clear...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that makes sense in where Marx diverges from Hegel, (both having diverged from Empiricism.)

Hegelian dialectics becomes the acceptable Capitalist answer to Marx's dialectics.

__________________________________________________

http://www.wsu.edu/~tcook/doc/HegelMarxComparisons.htm

Hegel-- praises the modern or liberalized European state as the actualization of the idea of freedom, to be preserved as the institutional expression of the level of progress in ethics. The state is not a class partisan force but rather the conciliator of all "estates." Law is the expression of the universal will.

Marx-- If Hegel praised old revolutions only to prevent new ones, Marx saw all of history as class struggle, and looked forward to revolutionary change (which would be violent if the ruling classes resisted, even "breaking the contract" if they lost democratic elections).

So it makes sense that a scholarly honesty dealing with Marx within the constraints of a capitalist system looks to Hegel.

Robert::"Fletcher Prouty asserted that there were many Generals at the Pentagon influenced by the Hegelian Dialectic.

Any thoughts [Response not mean't as a criticism or endorsement of Hegel's work].

There is an old adage "We may be through with the past, but the past is not through with us."

Paraphased as sometimes ignorance is anything but bliss"

The point I tried to make here is perhaps highlighted by this snippet from another thread

" (Henry Ford) once proclaimed, "If people understood how the economic system works, there'd be a revolution in a minute." He didn't like unions either: communists."

so to deal with a world view that sought to raise an understanding of how "the economic system works" one must necessarily confront Marx's dialectics, and without getting too bogged down by the finer details, an acceptable divergent philosophy is provided by Hegel in his more spiriual, pro status quo stance.

This blurring of distinctions is typical in other areas, for example Hitler calling his party National Socialists and pretending to be for the worker, while tagreting the genuine socialist, ultimately showing himself to be the premier anti worker.

Karl Popper gives me a headache, but I understand he attempts to counter Marx as well. Perhaps the General of today spouts Popper?

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...