|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Titus wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
The system is a combination of Huxley and Orwell. Why pick one, the elite decided. We're now receiving a monthly Two Minutes of Hate too. We are in a slow moving Bolshevik Revolution. |
Yes, "Peace, Land, Bread, and the end of sexist language" was indeed the rallying slogan of Bolshevism. |
The Bolsheviks did demand that revolutionary language be used. Their goal, like the modern Bolshevik goal, was to completely destroy the family and everything else from the previous order. To destroy the family it is necessary to destroy concepts of familial roles and this is achieved through propaganda and laws. Peace, land and bread were in no way/shape/form goals of the Bolshevik revolution.
Don't take my word for it.
Lev Davidovich Bronstein (aka Trotsky), the Bolshevik's Bolshevik, lamenting Stalin's removal of Bolshevism from the Soviet Union:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch07.htm
| Quote: |
The revolution made a heroic effort to destroy the so-called “family hearth” – that archaic, stuffy and stagnant institution in which the woman of the toiling classes performs galley labor from childhood to death. The place of the family as a shut-in petty enterprise was to be occupied, according to the plans, by a finished system of social care and accommodation: maternity houses, creches, kindergartens, schools, social dining rooms, social laundries, first-aid stations, hospitals, sanatoria, athletic organizations, moving-picture theaters, etc. The complete absorption of the housekeeping functions of the family by institutions of the socialist society, uniting all generations in solidarity and mutual aid, was to bring to woman, and thereby to the loving couple, a real liberation from the thousand-year-old fetters. Up to now this problem of problems has not been solved. The forty million Soviet families remain in their overwhelming majority nests of medievalism, female slavery and hysteria, daily humiliation of children, feminine and childish superstition. We must permit ourselves no illusions on this account. For that very reason, the consecutive changes in the approach to the problem of the family in the Soviet Union best of all characterize the actual nature of Soviet society and the evolution of its ruling stratum.
It proved impossible to take the old family by storm – not because the will was lacking, and not because the family was so firmly rooted in men’s hearts. On the contrary, after a short period of distrust of the government and its creches, kindergartens and like institutions, the working women, and after them the more advanced peasants, appreciated the immeasurable advantages of the collective care of children as well as the socialization of the whole family economy. Unfortunately society proved too poor and little cultured. The real resources of the state did not correspond to the plans and intentions of the Communist Party. You cannot “abolish” the family; you have to replace it. The actual liberation of women is unrealizable on a basis of “generalized want.” Experience soon proved this austere truth which Marx had formulated eighty years before. |
America is a slow moving Bolshevik revolution. |
Yes you are right, I was being facetious with my faux quote of the original Bolshevik rallying slogan.
My underlying point is that it can't seriously be said that a Bolshevik Revolution is in process because it happened in a completely different context. Just pointing out passing resemblances isn't enough. Speaking like that cheapens discussion of modern problems in so many ways. If somebody doesn't like the direction things are going in, no problem, we're free people. However, don't pull in spurious historical analogies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gforce645
Joined: 02 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "Words matter," Liz Watson, a National Women's Law Center senior adviser, told Reuters. "This is important in changing hearts and minds." |
Maybe she should change her name to Liz Watchild because "Watson" is sexist against daughters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| My underlying point is that it can't seriously be said that a Bolshevik Revolution is in process because it happened in a completely different context. |
It is a useful point of reference. Obviously there aren't people running around calling themselves Bolsheviks (they became neo-cons and neo-liberals, which solidly demonstrates their commitment to the workers).
| Quote: |
| Speaking like that cheapens discussion of modern problems in so many ways. If somebody doesn't like the direction things are going in, no problem, we're free people. However, don't pull in spurious historical analogies. |
What? The use of historical analogies is one of the main tools of the group in charge now. It is effective. The discussion, to use your term, could not be cheaper already. Everything is racist this and that, nazi this and that, Hitler over here, Hitler over there, "dark history of etc". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| My underlying point is that it can't seriously be said that a Bolshevik Revolution is in process because it happened in a completely different context. |
It is a useful point of reference. Obviously there aren't people running around calling themselves Bolsheviks (they became neo-cons and neo-liberals, which solidly demonstrates their commitment to the workers).
. |
Yeah, America has become so Socialists since the 1950's.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| My underlying point is that it can't seriously be said that a Bolshevik Revolution is in process because it happened in a completely different context. |
It is a useful point of reference. Obviously there aren't people running around calling themselves Bolsheviks (they became neo-cons and neo-liberals, which solidly demonstrates their commitment to the workers).
. |
Yeah, America has become so Socialists since the 1950's. |
Bolshevism was never about socialism. That's just how they sold it to the proles. These people always phrase their goals in terms of universalism, equality, etc. Note that the Bolsheviks became neo liberals and neo cons as soon as Stalin kicked the Bolsheviks out of power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| My underlying point is that it can't seriously be said that a Bolshevik Revolution is in process because it happened in a completely different context. |
It is a useful point of reference. Obviously there aren't people running around calling themselves Bolsheviks (they became neo-cons and neo-liberals, which solidly demonstrates their commitment to the workers).
. |
Yeah, America has become so Socialists since the 1950's. |
Bolshevism was never about socialism. That's just how they sold it to the proles.
|
So a central controlled economy and the elimination of private property was all just a ruse?
| Quote: |
| These people always phrase their goals in terms of universalism, equality, etc. Note that the Bolsheviks became neo liberals and neo cons as soon as Stalin kicked the Bolsheviks out of power. |
Well the Bolsheviks who were removed from Stalin were mostly executed. Those in exile became Trotskyites. Another theory of Marxism.
Quite the revisionist you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Not really catman. I think what Titus is referring to is the Frankfurt school of marxism, which later became cultural marxism. Although ostensibly in favor of a redistribution of wealth, they are more concerned with cultural mores. They are crazy about Freud. I think Herbert Marcuse's eros and civilization is a good place to start if you want to learn more about what they think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So a central controlled economy and the elimination of private property was all just a ruse? |
It was a means of gaining control. Similar, the war in Iraq was never about Democracy. Marketing.
| Quote: |
| Well the Bolsheviks who were removed from Stalin were mostly executed. Those in exile became Trotskyites. Another theory of Marxism. |
The Trotsky followers became neo liberals and neo con. This is an entirely uncontroversial statement.
| Quote: |
Quite the revisionist you are. |
I don't allow the propaganda of a revolution to cloud analysis of the revolution.
..came from Germany. Though they were internationalists as well.
The goal of Frankfurters and the Bolsheviks was to destroy nationalist, rooted, Christian European society. Russia is recovering and America is the mark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| It was my understanding that a group of frankfurt types ended up in UCLA right before the war, and really got cultural marxism moving in the states... |
Yeah. Hitler expelled a ton too, who then mostly went through the New School. The New School and Brooklyn College functioned as diploma mills for recently arrived leftists. They still do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So a central controlled economy and the elimination of private property was all just a ruse? |
It was a means of gaining control. Similar, the war in Iraq was never about Democracy. Marketing. |
You have evidence for this?
| Quote: |
| Well the Bolsheviks who were removed from Stalin were mostly executed. Those in exile became Trotskyites. Another theory of Marxism. |
| Quote: |
The Trotsky followers became neo liberals and neo con. This is an entirely uncontroversial statement.
|
Nope. There were a handful that became conservatives after their youth. The overwhelming majority were still leftist. Especially those that were actually exiled.
| Quote: |
The goal of Frankfurters and the Bolsheviks was to destroy nationalist, rooted, Christian European society. Russia is recovering and America is the mark. |
Again I have to ask for what evidence you have for the Bolsheviks real goals? Soviet Archives have been a treasure trove for historians since opening up back in the 90's.
Secondly, why didn't the neo-cons go after Christian USA? Why weren't they supporters of "cultural Marxism"? The early neo-cons like Irving Kritol didn't even support the counter-culture movement of the 1960's.
The difference between the neo-cons and the paleo-cons is nominal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You have evidence for this? |
All politics is about power and control. That's the point of it.
Though, you need evidence that a group of people who murdered tens of millions of citizens were motivated by something other than economic idealism?
| Quote: |
| Nope. There were a handful that became conservatives after their youth. The overwhelming majority were still leftist. Especially those that were actually exiled. |
No. Read Norman Podhoretz's book. When the Soviet Union became 'bad for the internationalists' the internationalists pretended to be on the right.
Right v Left isn't a useful way to look at these people. They have a fundamentally different way of looking at things.
| Quote: |
| Again I have to ask for what evidence you have for the Bolsheviks real goals? Soviet Archives have been a treasure trove for historians since opening up back in the 90's. |
Trotsky's writing. Marxist.org.
| Quote: |
| Secondly, why didn't the neo-cons go after Christian USA? |
1) They have not supported a single policy goal of Christians and 2) Christians are dumb enough to support wars for Israel. Contempt for Christians seethes from neo-con writing.
| Quote: |
| Why weren't they supporters of "cultural Marxism"? |
There has been exactly zero opposition from neo-cons towards cultural marxism. Their focus has been to preserve and expand Israel i mean democracy. Whatever domestic policy in the USA will get them there is supported.
| Quote: |
| The early neo-cons like Irving Kritol didn't even support the counter-culture movement of the 1960's. |
No. The New Left (internationalist communists) opposed anti-communist interventions by the USA (because the New Left is communist). This is was what neo-cons found objectionable. They wanted liberal internationalism enforced by Southern Christians with guns. To poison the well they pretended to oppose the cultural aspects (though less now) but never put up any meaningful fight. Read Paul Gottfried on how they destroyed the careers of anybody who was actually on the right.
| Quote: |
| The difference between the neo-cons and the paleo-cons is nominal. |
That's a completely ridiculous statement. You don't know what you're talking about. If that were the case then Pat Buchanan's Culture Wars speech wouldn't have sent the neo-cons into a meltdown. If it were the case then protectionist, traditionalist, nationalism would be the republican platform. If it were the case there would not have been a war in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Though, you need evidence that a group of people who murdered tens of millions of citizens were motivated by something other than economic idealism? |
Yes. Pol Pot and Mao as well.
| Quote: |
No. Read Norman Podhoretz's book. When the Soviet Union became 'bad for the internationalists' the internationalists pretended to be on the right. |
Name them. Because I can give you more names of real Trotskyites who opposed Stalinism but were still on the far left throughout the cold war.
| Quote: |
Right v Left isn't a useful way to look at these people. They have a fundamentally different way of looking at things. |
You have to lump Neo-Cons and the far left in together to fit your revisionist conspiracy theory. Otherwise it falls apart.
| Quote: |
Trotsky's writing. Marxist.org. |
So show it to me.
| Quote: |
1) They have not supported a single policy goal of Christians
|
Well accept for attacking abortion rights, same-sex marriage while supporting faith-based programs, abstinence only education, traditional family values etc........
| Quote: |
| 2) Christians are dumb enough to support wars for Israel. Contempt for Christians seethes from neo-con writing. |
Christians being stupid is besides the point. The fact is that they largely support right-wing Zionism thus support the Neo-Cons and US foreign policy in the middle east.
| Quote: |
There has been exactly zero opposition from neo-cons towards cultural marxism.
|
Except for the fact that they have been on the same side as the Christian right during the "culture war."
| Quote: |
No. The New Left (internationalist communists) opposed anti-communist interventions by the USA (because the New Left is communist). This is was what neo-cons found objectionable. They wanted liberal internationalism enforced by Southern Christians with guns. To poison the well they pretended to oppose the cultural aspects (though less now) but never put up any meaningful fight. Read Paul Gottfried on how they destroyed the careers of anybody who was actually on the right. |
Guess who also opposed US intervention in Vietnam? Trotskyites! How can that be?
So because they Neo-Cons opposed the counter-culture movement they must have been "pretending" so that they could lead the conservative movement towards its real goal?
By incorporating the counter-culture movement into the Republican Party they could have struck a massive blow to American Christians and "traditional values". Which was supposed to have been their main goal from the outset.
| Quote: |
That's a completely ridiculous statement. You don't know what you're talking about. If that were the case then Pat Buchanan's Culture Wars speech wouldn't have sent the neo-cons into a meltdown. If it were the case then protectionist, traditionalist, nationalism would be the republican platform. If it were the case there would not have been a war in Iraq. |
It is all nice and well that Buchanan was opposed to the Iraq War and US foreign policy in the ME. However, he and the Paleocons were big supporters of US imperialism during the cold ward. How was that internationalism any different from what the neo-cons have done? (geography excluded) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mao and Pol Pot, like the Bolsheviks, worked towards a "year zero" annihilation of traditional culture. This is why they killed scores. The purpose was to eradicate all of the cultural, social, economic, political and intellectual past. This in contrast to socialistic populists in Canada like Tommy Douglas, who were actually trying to protect "the workers" from the consequences of markets.
| Quote: |
| Name them. Because I can give you more names of real Trotskyites who opposed Stalinism but were still on the far left throughout the cold war. |
Of course all Trotskists opposed Stalin. He won. None the less, the expulsion of Lev Bronstein (and the Moscow Trials) gave the world the neo-cons. This is not controversial. The founding neo cons have written about it extensively. Podhoretz in 'Why are Jews Liberal' goes into great detail.
| Quote: |
| You have to lump Neo-Cons and the far left in together to fit your revisionist conspiracy theory. Otherwise it falls apart. |
You do not have sufficient status to use shame as a tactic. That's a tool of the powerful and not the powerless. Demanding that a deviation from what you believe to be accurate be labeled revisionism is contemptible.
Right v Left is not a useful benchmark. It's not a useful benchmark now either. The French Revolution was a long time ago. At best, r v l is good for pejoratives.
Neo conservatives, if we're going to put them anywhere, are on the left, in the sense that the left is opposed to traditional ways of living and organizing (as this relates to Europeans or Arabs). This is the same bench mark we can use with Hitler, who belongs on the right, despite being a socialist, because he was looking in the past (though with strong modernist influences).
I am not going to go back and read Lev Bronstein for you.
| Quote: |
| Well accept for attacking abortion rights, same-sex marriage while supporting faith-based programs, abstinence only education, traditional family values etc........ |
neo cons support abortion. They were in favor of integration, multi culturalism, mass immigration, internationalism generally, the removal of Christian cultural artifacts from education and politics.
You've made an error here. You've identified Republicans as neo-cons. Neo cons were a liberalizing faction within the Republicans who eventually came to dominate the party though media saturation and an ability to generate boatloads of cash.
That said, they did not focus attention on domestic matters all that much. Their focus has been Israel, wars for Israel, lobbying for Israel, etc. They will go on TV and talk about the Constitution and this and that and go back to lobbying for wars to serve Israel. A perfect present day example of this is Jennifer Rubin, who has a column called "Right Turn" but is entirely focused on starting wars for Israel (while supporting gay marriage, mass immigration and other liberal/internationalist causes).
| Quote: |
| Except for the fact that they have been on the same side as the Christian right during the "culture war." |
They haven't been. Zero, exactly zero, political capital has been focused on preserving the Christian culture of America. It's an absurd thought. Why would revolutionary Jews (which is the vast majority of neo-cons) work to support Traditionalist Christianity? Or are we to pretend that left v right is sufficient and ethnic politics and conflict completely entirely fully don't exist? I'm not prepared to be that naive.
| Quote: |
So because they Neo-Cons opposed the counter-culture movement they must have been "pretending" so that they could lead the conservative movement towards its real goal?
By incorporating the counter-culture movement into the Republican Party they could have struck a massive blow to American Christians and "traditional values". Which was supposed to have been their main goal from the outset. |
Yes. They've been pretending. They're goal is protecting internationalism and Israel. When they talk to a mass audience they go on about liberalism etc but in Commentary etc they focus almost entirely on Israel (and the plutocracy). Many political commentators pretend to have one ideology when pushing another. To help you understand, I'll use the most simple example possible: The oligopoly will make statements about 'economic freedom' when they really want special privileges (ie monopoly). Dishonesty is in the blood of politics. Jennifer Rubin does not care about the Republic, the citizenry, the culture or anything else that doesn't end in 'rael' or come with a $$.
| Quote: |
| It is all nice and well that Buchanan was opposed to the Iraq War and US foreign policy in the ME. However, he and the Paleocons were big supporters of US imperialism during the cold ward. How was that internationalism any different from what the neo-cons have done? (geography excluded) |
The perceived interests of old and new conservatives aligned during Vietnam. They then radically deviated. Then one side won and the other was destroyed. Do you understand that interests can align and then deviate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Mao and Pol Pot, like the Bolsheviks, worked towards a "year zero" annihilation of traditional culture. This is why they killed scores. The purpose was to eradicate all of the cultural, social, economic, political and intellectual past. This in contrast to socialistic populists in Canada like Tommy Douglas, who were actually trying to protect "the workers" from the consequences of markets. |
Well yes I agree.
| Quote: |
Of course all Trotskists opposed Stalin. He won. None the less, the expulsion of Lev Bronstein (and the Moscow Trials) gave the world the neo-cons. This is not controversial. The founding neo cons have written about it extensively. Podhoretz in 'Why are Jews Liberal' goes into great detail.
You do not have sufficient status to use shame as a tactic. That's a tool of the powerful and not the powerless. Demanding that a deviation from what you believe to be accurate be labeled revisionism is contemptible.
Right v Left is not a useful benchmark. It's not a useful benchmark now either. The French Revolution was a long time ago. At best, r v l is good for pejoratives. |
The problem is that the far right want to put all Jews into the same category no matter what their ideological disposition is. As if they are colluding behind the scenes to take down Western society. ie ; The Neo-Con Jews will push for warfare while the left wing Jews will push for 'Cultural Marxism' domestically. No evidence seems to be required.
| Quote: |
Neo conservatives, if we're going to put them anywhere, are on the left, in the sense that the left is opposed to traditional ways of living and organizing (as this relates to Europeans or Arabs). |
This completely contradicts their support of social conservatism.
| Quote: |
| I am not going to go back and read Lev Bronstein for you. |
Well shouldn't there be enough ample evidence that you don't have to?
| Quote: |
| neo cons support abortion. They were in favor of integration, multi culturalism, mass immigration, internationalism generally, the removal of Christian cultural artifacts from education and politics. |
Integration and "mass immigration" have been a fact for the past four decades. Something Ronald Reagan even supported. I think it is hard to put the blame on the Neo-Cons for that. There may be a handful of identified Neo-Cons who support abortion but the majority do no. As for the alleged dechristianization absolutely not.
Also, "internationalism" is not one single ideology.
| Quote: |
You've made an error here. You've identified Republicans as neo-cons. Neo cons were a liberalizing faction within the Republicans who eventually came to dominate the party though media saturation and an ability to generate boatloads of cash. |
No. The first liberalizing faction were the Rockefeller Republicans.
As for confusing Neo-Cons with Republicans what criteria do you have for determining who is a Neo-Con? How about ultra social conservatives like Palin, Bachmann and Santorum? They fully support US foreign policy in the Middle East.
| Quote: |
That said, they did not focus attention on domestic matters all that much. Their focus has been Israel, wars for Israel, lobbying for Israel, etc. They will go on TV and talk about the Constitution and this and that and go back to lobbying for wars to serve Israel. A perfect present day example of this is Jennifer Rubin, who has a column called "Right Turn" but is entirely focused on starting wars for Israel (while supporting gay marriage, mass immigration and other liberal/internationalist causes). |
While the Neo-Cons have focused more on the Middle East than other Republicans in the past The US has been a big booster of Israel since the beginning of the Cold War. Even Richard Nixon almost went to war for Israel.
As for gay marriage, they were in power for 8 years and did nothing to promote this "cultural Marxist" ideal to bring down the family.
| Quote: |
They haven't been. Zero, exactly zero, political capital has been focused on preserving the Christian culture of America. |
Accept for what I pointed out previously.
| Quote: |
It's an absurd thought. Why would revolutionary Jews (which is the vast majority of neo-cons) work to support Traditionalist Christianity?
|
Um how did you determine that "revolutionary Jews" are the vast majority of Neo-Cons? Regardless they are embedded with the Christian right in the United States.
| Quote: |
Yes. They've been pretending. They're goal is protecting internationalism and Israel. When they talk to a mass audience they go on about liberalism etc but in Commentary etc they focus almost entirely on Israel (and the plutocracy). Many political commentators pretend to have one ideology when pushing another. To help you understand, I'll use the most simple example possible: The oligopoly will make statements about 'economic freedom' when they really want special privileges (ie monopoly). Dishonesty is in the blood of politics. does not care about the Republic, the citizenry, the culture or anything else that doesn't end in 'rael' or come with a $$. |
I am not really familiar with Jennifer Rubin but she is a mere journalist. How about focusing on the Neo-Cons who were actually in power like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld......you know the non-Jews.
Regardless if they are Jewish or not the agenda of the Christian right in the US and of the Neo-Con Republicans is pretty much identical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:25 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I'll dip in just a bit.
Rove and Wolfowitz should be used to define the modern Strauss-based movement more largely encompassed by "The Project for the New American Century".
Neo-con, neo-liberal, libertarian, etc...is essentially a word game.
BUT, to get back to the OP, while I find PC a bit silly, I think it also deserves credit. 
For tectonic movements in culture.
The premise is simple: raise the top bar and the bottom moves with it.
The N-word for blacks, the F-word for gays were pretty common at the time (early 1990s) there was a push for freshman to be first year students. And, to me, freshman v first year, is about 20 years ago. Almost every college has switched terms in the interim. I doubt there's a need for a law.
In the meantime, the N-word and F-word have moved into the taboo. Kids online still say fag and gay, but our culture has matured to a higher level when you're not talking to a bunch of 14-year-olds.
This forum is actually a good example.
And, despite hysteria about totalitarian societies, both male and female first year students still use "freshman" even if the word has disappeared from prospectuses.
Are ethnic and homophobic epithets less tolerated than 20 years ago?
Yes.
Win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
