Anarchism (spin-off thread)

[chuck schmidt]

"ANARCHISM is the radical notion that other people are not your property."

Or equally, the notion that I should live in a society that produces wealth and comfort because of the sharing that takes place in one way or another, such as employment and consumerism, but as soon as I get ahead I want the rules changed so that I don't have to share any more. In common parlance it is known as, "Up yours Jack, I've got mine."

 

[Dirk]

"ANARCHISM is the radical notion that other people are not your property."

Or equally, the notion that I should live in a society that produces wealth and comfort because of the sharing that takes place in one way or another, such as employment and consumerism, but as soon as I get ahead I want the rules changed so that I don't have to share any more. In common parlance it is known as, "Up yours Jack, I've got mine."

It says "Anarchism", not neoliberalism.

Anarchism is anti-state socialism - not hyper-capitalism. We're anti-capitalists. Also, if you want to get technical, i'm an anarcho-syndicalist - that's why i'm so pro-union.

Why the Non Sequitur on my signature, anyway?

 

[chuck schmidt]

It says "Anarchism", not neoliberalism.

Anarchism is anti-state socialism - not hyper-capitalism. We're anti-capitalists. Also, if you want to get technical, i'm an anarcho-syndicalist - that's why i'm so pro-union.

Why the Non Sequitur on my signature, anyway?

You ask why I choose to debate your signature? Let’s debate anarchism.

From dictionary.com: (three other definitions, plus)

a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

My central position is that human beings are not capable of living idealistically in large populations without laws and governments. Laws are agreed rules of behavior. Government ensures that laws are obeyed. Not only does greed always tempt some people, but how does one define rights in the absence of rules? Depending on idealism is a trap for the credulous that results in a "survival of the fittest" Darwinian society – “Social Darwinism”.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Social Darwinism refers to various ideologies based on a concept of competition among all individuals, groups, nations, or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.[1]

... Darwinism, which is a social adaptation of the theory of natural selection as first advanced by Charles Darwin. Natural selection explains speciation in populations as the outcome of competition between individual organisms for limited resources, popularly known as "survival of the fittest", a term coined by anthropologist Herbert Spencer, or "The Gospel of Wealth" theory ... by Andrew Carnegie. …

ocial Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century [note the reference to eugenics in this sentence].

In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex of 1882 Darwin described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families.... [saying]:

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.... ​

Social Darwinism is eugenics. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." Advocates of eugenics sought to counter what they regarded as dysgenic dynamics within the human gene pool, specifically in regard to congenital disorders and factors relating to the heritability of IQ. Widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, it has largely fallen into disrepute after having become associated with Nazi Germany. Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. …​

Let’s look at history. Between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages were the Dark Ages when the Church was a powerful authority. Since the decline of the Church western society has seen kingdoms, dictatorships and democracies. Always there is a power. Emerging after the Dark Ages were warrior classes, knights who became kings, created serfs and enforced feudalism.

Per Wiki, ideally knights of the medieval era were required to "Protect the weak, defenseless, helpless, and fight for the general welfare of all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight. But they didn’t. Serfs were the next thing to slaves and subject to pillage, women not of knights’ social class were subject to casual rape as a matter of privilege. This was the “cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups [in] the principal mode of organized society,” in 12th Century England and Europe. This was the reality of idealist anarchism before modern government.

The development of western society continued after 12th Century feudalism. Representative democracy arose during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment and the American and French Revolutions.[20] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy. As witnessed during the American years of neo-conservatism under George Bush, it remains a struggle to enable common people to live without the wealthy controlling every aspect of their lives in the 21st Century.

The idea that common people return to idealistic "anarchism" in the name of fairness and freedom in 2010 is a "Big Lie". From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

The source of Big Lie technique, from Chapter 10 of Mein Kampf:

But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame....

All this was inspired by the principle ... that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1] ​

I do not believe that anarchism is a viable middle class ideology. Because of the power that accrues to wealth in a society without laws and enforcement, it is elitist, anti-middle class and anti-democratic. Today’s middle class has been stripped of much of its wealth and power since the Reagan years. Society cannot live under an idealistic model unprotected by laws enforced by government. To be told that it can is a Big Lie as defined by Hitler.

 

[myp]

Moved these posts here for you guys as they fit better in a new thread.

 

[deanhills]

Interesting topic. I did some research to establish examples of anarchist Government and came up with some interesting examples at this url:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities. I thought the example below was quite interesting:

The indigenous peoples of Southern Mexico rebelled in 1994, partially in response to the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), reclaiming their lands in what is called "a war against oblivion".

Laws in the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities are not passed by "leaders", as such, but by "Good Government Councils" and by the will of the people (representatives in these councils are truly representative of their communities, rather than professional politicians). This is very similar to the delegate structure that many anarchists engage in with spokescouncils, or with unions. In many communities, general assemblies gather during the week to decide on various things facing the community. The assemblies are open to all, with no formal hierarchy. The decisions made by the communities are passed to elected delegates whose only job is to give the decided upon information to a council of delegates.[clarification needed] Like anarcho-syndicalist organizations, the delegates are recallable, and are also rotated. This way, massive numbers of people are able to decide things with no formal hierarchy, and without people speaking for them.

The assemblies and councils serve not as traditional governing bodies but as instruments of the people to provide medicine, education, food, and other essentials. The "laws" passed by the Good Government Councils are not enforced with policemen and prisons, but in a way that respects "criminals" as members of the community. For example, it was decided to ban alcohol and drugs, due to their nefarious influence on Indians in the past (though alcohol/drug prohibition is considered in conflict with anarchist principles). Violation of this law is surprisingly rare; those who do may be required, for example, to help build something their community needs. Some anarchists believe this to be a decentralized, non-authoritarian style similar to what they advocate, having always loathed prisons, police power, and capital punishment.

Like anarchists, Zapatistas also believe in forming freely associated collectives to carry out various jobs and tasks. Zapatistas collectively work land, and plant and grow crops. The Zapatistas do not claim to be anarchists, but through their actions and words, have shown some similarities to self-proclaimed anarchists and have become a cause c?lebre of the global left and the "anti-globalization movement". However, the Zapatistas, along with libertarian Marxism and traditional Zapatismo (which is almost identical to anarchism), have also been heavily influenced by the writings and actions of Ricardo Flores Mag?n, or "Magonism", who was an anarcho-syndicalist during the Mexican Revolution.

 

[Dirk]

You ask why I choose to debate your signature? Let’s debate anarchism.

From dictionary.com: (three other definitions, plus)

a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

My central position is that human beings are not capable of living idealistically in large populations without laws and governments. Laws are agreed rules of behavior. Government ensures that laws are obeyed. Not only does greed always tempt some people, but how does one define rights in the absence of rules? Depending on idealism is a trap for the credulous that results in a "survival of the fittest" Darwinian society – “Social Darwinism”.

Thanks, i know what social darwinism is. It is an abhorrent concept.

Governments do not care about people, they care about wealth and power.

I am more for liberties than rights, as such, but they serve a similar purpose.

Anarchism doesn't depend on idealism, by the way, it depends on practicality and necessity. If you lived by "survival of the fittest" in society without the state, you would probably have a shorter life span, far less security, no help if you are ill, unemployed or poor... the list goes on. Bakunin writes:

The liberty of every individual is only the reflection of his own humanity, or his human right through the conscience of all free men, his brothers and his equals.
I can feel free only in the presence of and in relationship with other men. In the presence of an inferior species of animal I am neither free nor a man, because this animal is incapable of conceiving and consequently recognizing my humanity. I am not myself free or human until or unless I recognize the freedom and humanity of all my fellowmen.
Only in respecting their human character do I respect my own.

Now i've forgotten the page, but he went on to say something like (don't hold me to the wording):

"the freedom of others, far from negating my own freedom, is actually a necessary premise and confirmation thereof"

I've a Christian friend, who said to me once "that's basically like Jesus said to do to others as you would have done unto you". I don't think religion is a good basis for society, but i just wanted to clarify what it means (in effect).

I do not believe that anarchism is a viable middle class ideology. Because of the power that accrues to wealth in a society without laws and enforcement, it is elitist, anti-middle class and anti-democratic. Today’s middle class has been stripped of much of its wealth and power since the Reagan years. Society cannot live under an idealistic model unprotected by laws enforced by government. To be told that it can is a Big Lie as defined by Hitler.

It is not a middle-class ideology at all, it is a working-class movement.

It is in favour of egalitarianism, it is a revolutionary libertarian socialist movement inclined toward overthrowing the bourgeois classes, and installing worker-control of industry, through industrial democracy.

[sarcasm]Oh, and thanks for quoting a person i loathe with huge passion in favour of your argument. I really appreciate it - it truly warmed me toward your way of thinking. [/sarcasm]

Interesting topic. I did some research to establish examples of anarchist Government and came up with some interesting examples at this url:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities. I thought the example below was quite interesting:

Yes, EZLN are libertarian socialists. There are quite a few examples of successful anarchist communities -

 

[chuck schmidt]

Thanks, i know what social darwinism is. It is an abhorrent concept.

Governments do not care about people, they care about wealth and power.

I am more for liberties than rights, as such, but they serve a similar purpose.

Agreed.

Anarchism doesn't depend on idealism, by the way, it depends on practicality and necessity. If you lived by "survival of the fittest" in society without the state, you would probably have a shorter life span, far less security, no help if you are ill, unemployed or poor... the list goes on.

Agreed.

"the freedom of others, far from negating my own freedom, is actually a necessary premise and confirmation thereof"

Agreed.

I've a Christian friend, who said to me once "that's basically like Jesus said to do to others as you would have done unto you". I don't think religion is a good basis for society, but i just wanted to clarify what it means (in effect).

IMO that depends on what you mean by "religion". Its a real double-edged sword. Religion usually refers to churches as institutions. The first duty of any institution is to its own survival. That is inconsistent with a duty to God. On the other hand religions are how faith has survived to be passed on. Imperfect, like everything human.

It is not a middle-class ideology at all, it is a working-class movement.

I accept that, but total absence of rules leads inevitably to chaos where survival of the fittest in the absence of control mechanisms elevates the strongest to positions of advantage.

It is in favour of egalitarianism, it is a revolutionary libertarian socialist movement inclined toward overthrowing the bourgeois classes, and installing worker-control of industry, through industrial democracy.

I don't disfavour the goal. I think that 8,000+ years of history tend to establish that peace requires controls, as much as they tend to be abused.

[sarcasm]Oh, and thanks for quoting a person i loathe with huge passion in favour of your argument. I really appreciate it - it truly warmed me toward your way of thinking. [/sarcasm]

Not on my side yet?

Yes, EZLN are libertarian socialists. There are quite a few examples of successful anarchist communities -

Communities yes, but modern societies? The problem communities make for your argument is that they are likely not self-sustaining but depend on the larger society around them. Thanks to the argument here I recognize that there are forms of anarchy that go beyond my limited Political Science 101 knowledge. However I still maintain that in any modern society as a whole anarchism is unworkable and anti-middle class, because people need rules and rules ultimately need enforcement. You are seeking Utopia. From Wicki:

Utopia (in English /juˈtoʊpiə/) is a name for an ideal community or society, that is taken from Of the Best State of a Republic, and of the New Island Utopia, a book written in 1516 by Sir Thomas More describing a fictional island in the Atlantic Ocean, possessing a seemingly perfect socio-politico-legal system. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempted to create an ideal society, and fictional societies portrayed in literature. It has spawned other concepts, most prominently dystopia.

The word comes from the Greek: οὐ, "not", and τόπος, "place", indicating that More was utilizing the concept as allegory and did not consider such an ideal place to be realistically possible. ...​

 

[Dirk]

IMO that depends on what you mean by "religion". Its a real double-edged sword. Religion usually refers to churches as institutions. The first duty of any institution is to its own survival. That is inconsistent with a duty to God. On the other hand religions are how faith has survived to be passed on. Imperfect, like everything human.

I agree. Though my point was mainly with the idea of "i do it because god tells me to" as a basis for the structure of society.

I accept that, but total absence of rules leads inevitably to chaos where survival of the fittest in the absence of control mechanisms elevates the strongest to positions of advantage.

Well, i'd disagee. Humans, by nature, crave order. I don't think chaos could possibly exist, to be honest. Society will always order itself. By overthrowing the bourgeoisie and the workers seizing the means of production as a part of the revolution, the People will have the power to organise society how they like, since ultimately, the workers will also be the local residents.

I don't disfavour the goal. I think that 8,000+ years of history tend to establish that peace requires controls, as much as they tend to be abused.

Good to know. But the question is, exactly how much peace do we have today? I feel that it is usually the State diving conflict, and if that is abolished, then that factor is removed. I am not arguing, however, that there will necessarily be any less - certainly never no - conflict. I don't know that. But i doubt there would be more, however that is to be quantified.

Not on my side yet?

If you are a lefty, or better yet, a socialist of sorts, i have been on your side since the start of the conversation. This is merely a disagreement.

Communities yes, but modern societies? The problem communities make for your argument is that they are likely not self-sustaining but depend on the larger society around them.

Well, actually there have been communities that are entirely self-sustaining, but as far as i'm aware, they've been mostly agrarian.

In response to the point, however, i would see this as a good thing. If you consider that a lot of communities operate cooperative enterprises to help sustain and develop them, obviously, it doesn't provide all their needs. What it does, is it sells to people and uses the money to purchase the things it requires. This is selling to and buying from people outside the community. This is good, since it would mean interdependency, and would mean better relations with others in society.

It's really not good to isolate oneself.

However I still maintain that in any modern society as a whole anarchism is unworkable and anti-middle class, because people need rules and rules ultimately need enforcement.

Before anything else, i'd state that it's not anti-middle class, it'd be, i suppose, middle class agnostic, if you will. It's pretty much a working class movement against the rich owners of industry. The middle class are basically priveleged workers. They don't really lose or gain - if anythng it's a net gain. On the minus side, they don't have anyone to boss around, on the plus side, they aren't bossed around from above. On the plus side, they have a more direct influence on decision-making, on the minus side, they'd share it with the other workers. It really depends on the individual's personal feelings. It's often stated in socialist literature that some of the middle class will join the bosses and some of them will join us.

Now, i don't think that rules are necessarily the best basis for a society. Firstly, obviously, having a rule does not mean you remove what you perceive to be a problem. For example, it's illegal to smoke cannabis, but that doesn't mean people don't do it. Secondly, sticking to the example, it becomes "rebellious" to do it, because its illegal. Thirdly, enforcement and coercion can be used interchangeably, since laws are maintained by coercive institutions. Fourthly, laws prescribe punishment to remedy the situation, rather than rehabilitation and combatting the social ills that caused them. Fifthly, i'm concerned that a society of excessive laws (particularly with excessive force used to maintain them) will blindly and obediently follow. And also, laws can be used by people in power to satisfy their own agendas.

You are seeking Utopia.

To quote Rocker:

I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal.

You're actually talking to a former communist here, so i know what it's like to be a utopian. But i'm not a utopian any more. I am an anarchist because i recognise that the state will always seek power, and it will get that power through money. And so the people with money - namely the bourgeoisie (the bosses) - will always be able to utilise the state to meet their designs. And so you get rid of the state. Society is not going to be perfect without the state. I doubt it would be any worse, though. It's simply going to be different - very different. And without the state in the way, it will facilitate the possibility of making things better. I don't believe anything can be perfect - for example, philosophically, i'm a sceptic - but we can make things better. And you do that by removing obstacles. For example, the state, homophobia, bosses, poverty, inequality, racism, war... most abstract concepts we can't be rid of in their entirety, but making progress makes the world a better (though never perfect) place.

 

[chuck schmidt]

You're actually talking to a former communist here, so i know what it's like to be a utopian. But i'm not a utopian any more. I am an anarchist because i recognise that the state will always seek power, and it will get that power through money. And so the people with money - namely the bourgeoisie (the bosses) - will always be able to utilise the state to meet their designs.

So if I may cut to what I see as the chase, you see anarchism as small communities, governable by consensus, hopefully able to exist on the verge of the main society without actually having to participate beyond a low level trading relationship?

And so you get rid of the state. Society is not going to be perfect without the state. I doubt it would be any worse, though. It's simply going to be different - very different. And without the state in the way, it will facilitate the possibility of making things better. I don't believe anything can be perfect - for example, philosophically, i'm a sceptic - but we can make things better. And you do that by removing obstacles. For example, the state, homophobia, bosses, poverty, inequality, racism, war... most abstract concepts we can't be rid of in their entirety, but making progress makes the world a better (though never perfect) place.

May I suggest that only in the kind of culture I posit above in this post (small communities, governable by consensus, etc) can you avoid the habits of human nature that create individuals gaining power, which potentially brings in all the rest? The saving grace might be to expel those whose conduct threatens the equilibrium, but isn't expulsion the ultimate coercion? Including right at the start when you "get rid of" the state and all the people concerned who are also part of your life even when you don't personally know them? The seeds of your destruction are present in your roots.

Ultimately you're not describing a workable ideology for the world. Unfortunately the world needs large capital pools to create necessities such as health facilities and utilities. You're describing a possible format for a small commune somewhere, most of which historically survive for a season or two then evaporate. Children are born. Perceived needs change. Leaders move on and ideology shifts, or people change and the ideology remains too inelastic. In a lucky situation everybody parts friends after a very worthwhile experience. Often isolation, infidelity and jealousy ruin friendships and its more of an explosion than an evaporation? In the long term you're back to human nature. Move over Jim Jones.

 

[Dirk]

So if I may cut to what I see as the chase, you see anarchism as small communities, governable by consensus, hopefully able to exist on the verge of the main society without actually having to participate beyond a low level trading relationship?

Well, presuming people want to enact large-scale change, they'll need help from people in other communities as well. If it's a very local change, it won't really affect anyone outside the community. The trading and interdependency, i am saying, could provide an opportunity for greater social interaction, which would be good.

May I suggest that only in the kind of culture I posit above in this post (small communities, governable by consensus, etc) can you avoid the habits of human nature that create individuals gaining power, which potentially brings in all the rest? The saving grace might be to expel those whose conduct threatens the equilibrium, but isn't expulsion the ultimate coercion? Including right at the start when you "get rid of" the state and all the people concerned who are also part of your life even when you don't personally know them? The seeds of your destruction are present in your roots.

If people want to isolate themselves, so be it. It is they who will destroy themselves.

And "get rid of" doesn't necessarily mean kill, except in extreme circumstances, it means, in this case, to remove from authority. As for whether this is coercive, i would ask this. Is it coercive to snatch back one's own wallet? Is it coercive to overthrow those that oppress you?

If I use the money I stole from your wallet to buy a whip, torture you horribly, you take the whip from me and i accuse you of coercion, i would subsequently find myself in a white coat. It is ridiculous.

 

[deanhills]

Ultimately you're not describing a workable ideology for the world. Unfortunately the world needs large capital pools to create necessities such as health facilities and utilities. You're describing a possible format for a small commune somewhere, most of which historically survive for a season or two then evaporate. Children are born. Perceived needs change. Leaders move on and ideology shifts, or people change and the ideology remains too inelastic. In a lucky situation everybody parts friends after a very worthwhile experience. Often isolation, infidelity and jealousy ruin friendships and its more of an explosion than an evaporation? In the long term you're back to human nature. Move over Jim Jones.

Good point, as in the examples I quoted before, they were limited to smaller communities, not large countries. Also, they seemed to have had limited lifespans. They are created on the basis of a threat, or something that is cohesive for that community only, and then when that threat has expired, then there is no more basis for its continued existence.

 

[Dirk]

Good point, as in the examples I quoted before, they were limited to smaller communities, not large countries. Also, they seemed to have had limited lifespans. They are created on the basis of a threat, or something that is cohesive for that community only, and then when that threat has expired, then there is no more basis for its continued existence.

And in many examples, such as the Diggers, Paris, Catalonia or Northern Italy, they have been forcefully dissipated. Nowadays, a huge number of intentional communities exist around the world, many have been there for years or longer.

 

[chuck schmidt]

And "get rid of" doesn't necessarily mean kill,

I never thought of kill, just that the eviction of a member from the community by any means is the ultimate coercion.

As for whether this is coercive, i would ask this. Is it coercive to snatch back one's own wallet? Is it coercive to overthrow those that oppress you?

I agree, but then we're still talking enforcement. My understanding was that you desired an enforcement-free community? My argument is simply that no such thing is possible with human nature.

 

[Dirk]

I never thought of kill, just that the eviction of a member from the community by any means is the ultimate coercion.

Nah, only from authority - they're perfectly capable and welcome to coexist if they like. Pretty much all multi-issue authority is illegitemate, though.

I agree, but then we're still talking enforcement. My understanding was that you desired an enforcement-free community? My argument is simply that no such thing is possible with human nature.

Well, technically, it could be done without enforcement, but i doubt everyone would go that easily. It's not so much enforcement-free - that seems a bit utopic for my taste - but rather a society with less coercion. A governmentless society could provide a good starting point and facilitate a lot more liberty, and a more egalitarian society, since the workers own the means of production.

 

[chuck schmidt]

Nah, only from authority - they're perfectly capable and welcome to coexist if they like. Pretty much all multi-issue authority is illegitemate, though.



Well, technically, it could be done without enforcement, but i doubt everyone would go that easily. It's not so much enforcement-free - that seems a bit utopic for my taste - but rather a society with less coercion. A governmentless society could provide a good starting point and facilitate a lot more liberty, and a more egalitarian society, since the workers own the means of production.

Well, good on you for wanting good. I've amended my sig line because you objected.

 

[deanhills]

Nowadays, a huge number of intentional communities exist around the world, many have been there for years or longer.

Is it possible to show us some examples as I am quite intrigued by what I have read and learned to date.

 

[Dirk]

Well, good on you for wanting good. I've amended my sig line because you objected.

Thank you. I agree with it, too.

Is it possible to show us some examples as I am quite intrigued by what I have read and learned to date.

Well, quite a lot of communities have websites - except primitivist communities, of course - there are a few thousand listed here, but there are plenty more.

 

[Toatan]

thanks for your forum, I suppose you will become more and more successful! SPAM will tell you the gospel of wealth of Andrew Carnegie!

 

[tecoyah]

How did you know it is SPAM? :unsure:

Any advertisement, solicitation, marketing or redirect link will be labeled spam and eliminated.