Texas: A State Destroyed by Rick Perry

Rick Perry is the quintessential Republican looney-tune nutcase, 2011 style. He’s intensely religious, after all, he’s been put here by God Himself. He even states, comically, that he is implementing God’s will by serving as governor.

And he’s single-handedly destroyed the state of Texas. As goes Texas, so goes the nation. Look in the mirror, America. Texas is the future.

Granted, Texas was pretty near ruined when George Bush got through with it, but it seemed there was no where to go but up. Then along came Rick Perry.

Perry’s Texas has the greatest percentage of minimum wage in the US. That is the future of America under Republican rule – a nation of minimum wage workers. Republicans have been waging war on workers, wages and unions from the time they were formed as a party. There was a respite for a bit, but now they are back in style.

In fact, the best way to describe the Republican Party is “low-wage conservatism.” This philosophy is very popular in the South, which has been trashed by low wages, anti-worker and anti-union attitudes and lax regulation and environmental laws. The South is the future, splayed over the entire land. Welcome to Shithole America.

Rick Perry’s Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured Americans as any other state. Repubicans are all about making sure that you are uninsured. That’s their policy – under Republican rule, the uninsured always grow. They cut back on state funding for low income folks, and as a business friendly party, they encourage businesses to get rid of medical coverage for their workers.

The Republicans believe that you, not your employer, should pay for your own health insurance. That’s what George  Bush’s ownership society crap was all about. You get to go out and buy your own insurance, and then you get to “own” it, see? You get to buy your own insurance instead of Medicare, then you get to “own” your private old age insurance, see? Isn’t ownership fun?

Under Rick Perry, the budget deficit blew out of control due to his endless tax cuts. Texas now has one of the worst deficits of any state. Under Republican rule, deficits everywhere will explode due to irresponsible tax cutting.

Under Rick Perry, the Texan dipshits threatened to secede from the union if the government didn’t stop trying to give them health care. Yeah, you heard me right. The government tried to give the people health care, and it pissed Rick off so much that he threatened to secede. What a dumbass!

Under Rick Perry, Texas has the 3rd highest poverty rate in the nation. Under Republican rule, look for the poverty rate to explode. Rightwing rulers almost always send the poverty rate through the roof, at Republican Presidents are no exception. Poverty always rises under a Republican President. Poverty doubled under Pinochet. It’s what they do.

Texas is still an extremely rightwing state. Despite being wrecked by Republican governor after Republican governor, Texans keep coming back for more. Some folks just can’t get enough abuse.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

83 thoughts on “Texas: A State Destroyed by Rick Perry”

  1. It’s really not hard to understand why you hate White Americans so much. They really are some wacked out nutters. But why does the left (I mean the sane left) continue to alienate them with wackjob “anti-racism,” when that’s the issue that you have to figure is really gnawing at White hearts? (In this view, they react with vehemence to “big government” proposals because they’re not permitted to air their real grievances.)

    1. What should we do instead?

      Truth is that the Left, as in the Democratic Party, doesn’t really talk much about racism at all. I used to hang out at Daily Kos all the time. While there were a few PC types pushing the Whites are evil, racism racism racism meme, they were not very common. Almost all of those authors were minorities like Blacks and Hispanics. And consider that DK is the left wing of the Democratic Party.

      So the Democratic Party per se really is not pushing all this nutty anti-racism stuff. They don’t even discuss racism all that much, except to point out when Republicans are being total racist assholes.

      The real anti-racist whackjobs are mostly minorities and are not really affiliated with any party. Call it the Cultural Left.

      These Whites are fighting a phantom. In the world of liberalism, there is no mass of anti-White hatred.

      Now, when you get further over to the Hard Left, yes, you do run into it a lot. But those folks are almost completely irrelevant. I figure that any White person who hates Democrats because they are “anti-White” seriously needs to have their head examined, because they are hallucinating.

      1. The anti-HBD realism really turns me off from the left, which is unfortunate since there are good reasons for me to be a lefty. I’m gay. All my friends are lefties. My great grandfather was an atheist/socialist activist from northern Italy. I’m uncomfortable with ostentatious displays of wealth. But at some point when discussing social issues HBD has to be addressed, and so many lefties refuse togo there.

      2. Sorry Robert, but I must disagree. I recall even YOU once saying that no sane white man would support the U.S. left, and you even once said (albeit a while back) that you might as well join the Tea Party, because it doesn’t hate whites, men, or straights.

        Granted, there’s a difference between Tim Wise and Gavin Newsom, but as far as I’m concerned, a very thin line separates the two.

        The way I see it, the Democrat party is a black, Jew (especially Jews, as the Dems get about 60% of their money from them), and illegal immigrant fest. No self-respecting white person can get on board with their agendas.

        The people screaming racism, xenophobia, diversity/multiculturalism is a strength (which is code for we need fewer white people), etc, they may not be card carrying members of the Democratic party, but they’re the types of people who support them.

        Robert, though you’re able to grasp it sometimes, with respect, your analysis of how U.S. whites are reactionary compared to whites in other countries doesn’t adequately acknowledge the role racial diversity and cultural leftism has played in that. As I predicted, as Europe became more racially diverse and PC, it has moved further to the right, and now that diversity is in their own backyard, Europeans (while not going for reaganomics) are becoming more reactionary just like white Americans.

        You see, for other peoples in other parts of the world, it’s easier to support the left, because the left operates within the framework of nationalism and patriotism (think of the Soviet Union, Communist China, and pre-1977 Israel).

        The problem with U.S. leftists is that they come across as self-loathing, unpatriotic, self-righteous internationalists.

        Regardless of a white peoples’ views on economics, they’re not going to support an ideology that pushes white self-flagellation. While leftist movements in other parts of the world supported nationalism/pride, if you’re a white leftist in the U.S, you have to be a self-loathing internationalist turd.

        As Lafleur has repeatedly pointed out, if you’re white in the U.S, you either have to spend your time apologizing for being white, or just completely walk away from the left.

        As Wade also pointed out, I think a lot of whites vote right wing/anti-progressive not so much because they endorse Republican policies, but more out of spite for self-righteous leftists. I can partially confirm this view.

        And, as 60s veteran and leftist Jeff Blankfort has pointed out, the left has become increasingly alienated from the mainstream, and is in fact proud of it. This is precisely what Saul Alinsky warned against.

        Robert, with respect, you can rail against reactionary whites all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that compared to the left in other countries, the U.S. left is a
        colossal joke, and is better at alienating whites with all of its cultural liberalism/lifestyle shit than actually making this country better.

        1. I’m going to ask a question: What does the Democratic party have to offer me?

          They offer neoliberal economics, open borders, an interventionist foreign policy, multiculturalism/diversity, and as my dad can attest to, failed educational policies as well (ie. they’ve adopted fundamental right wing approaches to education while at the same time maintaining all this “equity”/multiculturalism crap).

          Not that I could ever support Republicans. They offer shitty economics, gun nuts, religious fanatics, and corporate assholes (not that the Dems are much better in that regard, though).

          I guess I’ll just vote 3rd party from now on.

          But a Democrat is going to have to do a ton to earn my vote. Maybe I’ll try American 3rd Position.

        2. The American left, with few exceptions, is economically neoliberal, and socially/culturally leftist.

          I’m the exact opposite. For that reason, I can never support the American left. No self-respecting white man can.

          For that reason, when far leftists (not necessarily you, Robert) berate the U.S. for not being more like Sweden or other Socialist countries, they’re comparing apples to oranges.

        3. I am sorry. I don’t agree at all. The Democratic Party is not Tim Wise. That’s just nuts. And I don’t agree that the Democratic Party wants you to apologize for being White. That’s crazy.

        4. Blankfort is talking about the Left, not liberalism. He’s basically a Leftist. Alinsky was also a Leftist. You’re confusing Leftists with liberals again.

          I don’t want to see the government completely defunded or the safety net completely unraveled. It’s not that the Democrats are any good, but that the Republicans are such a nightmare. The country is so reactionary that the Democrats have to run to the right. Obama is probably about as liberal as he can be (which is a bit debatable). If he goes any further left, he gets creamed and we lose the election and the full Republican nightmare is here.

        5. You’re confusing Leftists with liberals again.

          Fair enough, Robert. It’s just that in places like the Bay Area, it seems like there’s a thin line between the two at times.

          I don’t want to see the government completely defunded or the safety net completely unraveled.

          Neither do I.

          You are comparing yourself, a White nationalist, with your average White American and saying that the reason they vote this way is because they think like you do.

          Okay, that’s a reasonable rebuttal. The only thing is that while I am an anomaly among white Americans, I’m not as radically different from them as I previously thought. Based on my personal conversations, they too resent many of the things I resent.

          While they’re not able to articulate such resentments the way I can, there is thinly veiled resentment over non-white immigration, multiculturalism, etc. And you have to believe that such resentment factors into political thinking.

          Robert, just to clarify, I am hardly endorsing the Republicans in any way, shape, or form. They suck big balls. I’m just not going to vote for the Democrats either.

    2. i pray to god every day that my children and grandchildren will never have to mentally scarred by setting foot in Texas. I have raised them to be decent, loving people. Free of bigotry and prejudice. To be able to formulate a cohesive thought and idea. To listen to an opposing view, and to consider it’s merits. To have the wherewithall to engage people of other religious and ethnic backgrounds, and accceppt them as equals. God help our country if another Texan risies to national prominence. The very idea that these mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging neandethals would have any influence whatsoever on the national discourse if frightening to me and evrything I hold dear. God bless the Unioted States of America…except Texas. Screw Texas, and all of her children.

  2. What should we do instead?

    Oh, shit….I don’t know, dude; talk about fucking immigration maybe? You know, as in mo-ra-to-ri-um? God, you’d think it was rocket science. It’s there for the taking. You tell me, Robert Lindsay, what but fear of or hatred of “racism” prevents the left from speaking up about it? Enough is enough. You want diversity? It’s here, in spades. Next? You got nothing? Good. Shut up. Enough is enough. And that’s all that needs to be said. Not.rocket.science.

    1. Yeah but the Right is all for mass immigration and diversity too. They’re just as bad. Any White person voting Republican to “fuck the damned immigrants” or “save White America” is first class fool.

      The Right won’t talk about either, but I believe for different reasons. Face it, when it comes to diversity and mass immigration, both parties are drinkin’ the Koolaid.

      1. Rob, I know the Right is all for immigration, and in a bad way. That’s the point. The Left needs to be for a moratorium — what could possibly be more pro-worker (in this day and age)?. Sadly, if a moratorium is in the offing it seems it’ll come from the Right. And if it does, it’s even sadder that rather than make it a bi-partisan issue the insane wing of the Left (at the least) will make it a partisan issue. A lose-lose scenario if there was ever one.

    2. You can blame our lousy two-party system. It really sucks. It is NOT the best system.

      It forces toxic coalitions to form- people that really aren’t on the same page- it divides the whole country into “one side or the other”.

      If you are at all left wing, you’re nuts not vote Demo, ditto if you are right-wing, for the Repubics.

      The Repubics are a toxic combo- libertarians, religious freaks, pro-capitalists, racists, fascists, pro-militarists, dumb rednecks, and some regular old fashioned, educated WASP types. Many of these groups have little in common. The Repubics really should split tnto 3 parties, or more.

      If the Demos could split into 2 or 3 different parties, the parties would actually reflect the members’ views. Cutural Far-left P.C. anti-white types in one party. Non P.C. economic lefties in another, pussy-ass D.N.C. demo-capitalists in another.

      We need to end two-party, first past the post crap. Proportional Representation is the only way to go. Til then, no hope…

      1. Re: Immigration

        While the organized Republican establishment, historically speaking, has been quite terrible on this issue, things are changing.

        Various states have enacted laws against illegal immigrants, initiatives that were not undertaken by the Democrats, I can assure you. Republicans, to a certain extent, are at least trying to curb the problem.

        Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, ENCOURAGE such immigration (because they want their votes) and saturate us with all this rhetoric about how “love has no borders,” “a human being is not illegal,” etc.

        1. @ Mott

          I agree that the two-party system needs to go. People analyzing the dysfunction of American politics don’t take this into account enough.

          Imagine if native Europeans were only given a choice between a Republicanesque party and an open borders, multiculturalist, Muslim ass kissing party. The good thing about Europe is that you have different choices.

          If I were a European, I could say fuck ’em to both the Dems and Repubs, and vote for a party like the BNP or Sweden Democrats.

          I agree that the Dems and Repubs should dissolve. Religious fanatics in one party, corporatists in another, cultural marxists in another, economic progressives in another, etc.

        2. I have a problem here BAG. You are comparing yourself, a White nationalist, with your average White American and saying that the reason they vote this way is because they think like you do. I have a hard time with that analogy. And the Euros are not turning rightwing at all on economics. They’re as Left as they have ever been, if not more so. All of those Euro nationalist parties you mention are socialist, if I am not mistaken. The only countries that turned to the Right are like the Baltics and have almost zero minorities.

        3. The biggest unspoken truth in U.S. politics is that the two parties divide, first and foremost, on racial lines.

          It is a really unfortunate aspect of our stupid two-party system is that it has basically forced one party to be the “PRO-WHITE” party (gee, which one would that be?)

          And, because of the duality nature of this asinine system- the other party has to be the “ANTI-WHITE” party. Can you guess which one?

          If you are not anti-white, you don’t have a party. Unless you’re a right-winger.

  3. On Rick Perry
    from Perry’s entry on wiki

    “While visiting Israel in August 2009, Perry gave an interview to the Jerusalem Post in which he affirmed his support for Israel from his religious background, “I’m a big believer that this country was given to the people of Israel a long time ago, by God, and that’s ordained.”[44]

    Perry’s brand of “small government” requires taxpayer largesse to the tune of trillions financing wars for Israel and the Empire’s wreaking havoc in the Islamic world . After all, God has regathered the Jews in Israel to usher in Christ’s return, and Israel must be protected at all costs–it’s part of God’s will.

    Such as Doug Feith Richard Perle, and William Kristol will continue counseling cultists like Perry on what votes this entails.

  4. @BAG
    You cited Soviet Union and pre-1977 israel as examples of nationalist leftists.
    When precisely do you think the USSR was nationalistic? During the Cold War maybe, but most certainly not before 1945. Many Slavs actually fought for the German invaders, hard to believe or not. And israhell attacked Egypt and Syria, which were both Soviet allies, so they were never “leftist” even before Likud.

    1. @ Uncle Joe (is that you, nazbol/fpy?)

      When citing the Soviet Union, I was primarily referring to the Cold War. My knowledge of pre-Cold War Soviet Union is sketchy, so I’m not going to offer an opinion regarding that.

      My citing of Mao’s China as an example of leftist nationalism certainly stands.

      With regards to Israel, up until the Likudniks, economically speaking, it was very leftist. It was completely run by Labor Zionist, from which Ben-Gurion hailed. Of course, this leftism applied only to Jews, and the hell with everyone else. And not even all Jews at that. The resentment of the Mizrahim (ie. Middle Eastern Jews) towards the Ashkenazi dominated Labor elite over being excluded from the Israeli mainstream played a factor in the Likud’s victory.

      Ever since then, Israel has progressively moved towards the right, not only economically, but also on account of religious fanatics increasingly gaining influence.

      But if you read the writings of early Labor Zionists, they mixed leftist economics and a Socialist ethos with Jewish nationalism, and saw no contradiction between the two.

      1. Yeah I changed my name.
        And when you say the USSR was nationalistic, were you referring to Russian nationalism? Between 1948 and 1952, Stalin started purging jews and zionist influence within the country, and the previously pro-jew USSR did a 180.

  5. Dear Robert
    I don’t doubt that a lot of the economic inequality in Texas is due to Republican policies, but some of it can be attributed to the massive presence of Blacks and Hispanics in that state. In the US, there is a strong negative correlation between the precentage of non-whites in the population of a state and its economic equality.
    This isn’t surprising since Blacks and Hispanics tend to compete with poorer whites, thereby making them even poorer. If you want to increase the minimum-wagers in the US, keep importing more low-skilled Mexicans.

    Regards. James

    1. but some of it can be attributed to the massive presence of Blacks and Hispanics in that state.

      I agree. There’s a huge correlation between racial demographics and the quality of living in any given place.

      For those who doubt such an assertion, I present you a tale of two cities: San Francisco and Oakland. Both are in the Bay Area, are close to one another, and both are governed by “liberals,” and have been for a very long time.

      One city (Oakland) is one of this country’s murder capitals and is one of the top 10 most dangerous cities in the country. The other city (San Francisco) is a world class city (though it has its bad parts, for sure).

      The difference between the two? Oakland is around 57% NAM (non-Asian minority, ie. blacks and Hispanics). San Francisco, for a big city, is only 21% NAM, with blacks only making up 7% of the population.

      Likewise, to me it’s no coincidence that as California has increasingly transformed from the Golden State to the Brown State, its economic viability has gone down, and inequality has increased. You can blame prop. 13 and prison guard unions all you want (and to be sure, both are definitely blameworthy), but you can’t analyze the decline of California without taking demographics into consideration.

  6. Sure Texas has way too many blue gum negros and spics to ever be a decent place, but one of the worst influences Texas suffers from is its early Scots-Irish settlers. Follow the course of there migrations from eastern Pennsylvania through to east Texas and you’ll find squalor, bad attitudes, poor dental hygene, and a desire to fued.

    1. I can’t even believe you said this! The people who first came to Texas were from lots of places back east, not just eastern Pennsylvania. Boy you have some bad attitude yourself. Sounds like you have spent too much time in East Texas, and you’re just assuming the rest of Texas is just like East Texas. And you’d be wrong if you are doing that. I’m from Austin and we’ve been voting Democrat, not Republican for president, (not once) since the Civil War 1865. Austin is liberal progressive and not at all like East Texas. And we have plenty of pioneers who came here in 1826 who were perhaps Scots-Irish. You don’t actually know who was who anyway. I do tons of genealogy so I actually KNOW who is who in Texas families.. You obviously don’t know anybody else’s genealogy much less your own. You obviously don’t know much Texas history, just your one little area.

      1. Don’t know about the Scots-Irish, but cursed has a point. Most White Texans are just as ignorant and trashy as Texans from other races. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions. Likewise, there are plenty of Hispanic Texans to whom the various negative stereotypes don’t apply. The first that comes to mind is a childhood friend whose Mexican-American father was a renowned cardiac surgeon. Then there was my very dark-skinned, exceedingly polite, accentless roommate at UT who was from the Valley, and who’s now a biochemistry PhD. Then there’s the loads and loads of Hispanic lawyers in Texas, and so on. The bible-thumping twits who can make this state unpleasant at times come in all colors, as do more reasonable folks like you and me.

  7. I’m a native Texan and no fan of Perry and really don’t bother to vote anymore since it really meaningless. I still pay the same taxes and more asinine laws get enacted every year or every 2 years in Texas’s case.

    Texas must not be that bad since stupid Californians have moved in, at least to Austin.

    I’m no where a rich guy, but I fork over 1/4 of my pay before and after my check and this before I buy groceries, electricity, or pay the mortgage. I can’t say either party helps me and those promote liberalism are just as scummy as the alternative that does nothing.

    1. That’s because they don’t have shit for labor laws and business regulations. And everything is less expensive in Texas. Even employing tons of illegals is cheaper there.

      You love Texas so much, why don’t you move there, get a mininum wage job, and then open your mouth to enlighten us with your immeasurable stupidity.

      1. What a great way to get your point across…….calling anyone that may have a different view point from you Stupid…how typical.:)

        1. Sky-Liar- Do me a favor and don’t lie about what I say.

          Had I merely called someone “stupid”, in a dismissive comment, you would have a point. That’s lame. Kind of like what you did, calling me “typical”?

          I actually laid out several resons why the person was wrong, and then called his ideas stupid. maybe I was too brief and harsh, but when you take credit for “job creation” that is driven by illegal immigration and their high birth rate, along with a “race to the bottom”, gutting business regulations to create thousands of shitty jobs that you are actually STEALING from OTHER STATES- that’s lame!

          SO, Sky-Liar- where do you stand? Can we count you as a Perry supporter? We don’t like Repubicans ’round here…

  8. I will also say that only entrepreneurs and the self-employed have the knowledge and experience to speak intelligently on matters of business and economics.

    1. And I will say that anyone who makes such a statement should do the world a favor and put a gun in their mouth, and pull the trigger.

      FUCK YOU


    2. “I will also say that only entrepreneurs and the self-employed have the knowledge and experience to speak intelligently on matters of business and economics.”

      And only pedophiles have the knowledge and experience to speak intelligently on matters on child rape and laws against pedos.

      Incidentally, what are your views on the subject?

        1. Yeah, there’s a lot of scummy small and medium size business people, too.

          In theory, tho, they can be much better than big corporations. Maybe not in practice.

          Almost every small/medium business I have worked for in this area (rural) has broken every single labor law under the sun- flagrantly.

          Even the nicer ones still loved to pay under the table (which fucks the worker over), hated to pay unemployment insurance, hated workers comp so bad they would throw their best worker under the bus for getting hurt,if push came to shove.

          When I got hurt on the job- they ran me off the property and fought me tooth and nail for 2 years to avoid paying a claim, lying their asses off all the way. They lost, finally.

          I was told by state employees that even here in California, the labor laws are not enforced in rural areas- with one exception- employers who fuck over illegals- they do go after them. Screw over an American- TSOL.

          Working at a sweat shop in Alabama, all us workers were told that from then on, all were working 12 hour shifts (3pm- 3am), 7 days a week, until further notice. If ya didn’t like it- leave. The job payed $5.50 hr, but rent was ridiculously cheap. I said fuck it and came back to Cali.

          They only material difference between being a “real”slave and being a wage slave is one puts a roof over your head and provides medical care. (let’s forget the whippin’ stuff- as if they don’t take it out of you in food, gas, rent?)

  9. @mott
    Are you a leftist WN? I’m confused over your ideological orientation.
    When and how did you become anti-capitalist? I agree with you.

    1. I don’t blame you for being confused.

      I am a Leftist who’s not anti-White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male. Call it pro-white iif you want but I’m not a racist- just a realist about race.

      When I was 18. I read everything I could about economics and political theory. One thing I read was Marx. Life changing. Here was someone who had figured out Capitalism. And the picture is not pretty.

      I’m not completly anti-Capitalist. When Capitalists are relatively beign or benevolent, treat and pay workers well, obey the laws, don’t trash everything, care about their customers then they have my support. This old Capitalist model, however, may be dead here in the U,S.

      Capitalism must be mixed with Socialism. Either one alone doesn’t work.

      Small and medium-sized businesses need to be encouraged- and encouraged to follow the rules- hire citizens, pay them well, no problems. This is NOT what has been happening, though.

      Capitalism may well be hitting a wall now, in the U.S. Nowhere to go except hire illegals , go offshore and import foreigners for cheap.

      1. @mott
        Just curious, what’s your opinion of Hitler and the 3rd Reich?
        I’m not anti-white, but I am rather hostile to Anglo-Saxondom, since they seem the most philo-Semitic and Judaicized among Europeans. I prefer Germans, Russians etc.

    1. When I say I’m pro Anglo-Saxon, I mean it in the broader racial sense- Germanic people from Northwestern Europe. N. French, N.Italians included.Call it Celtic if you want, which is even broader.

      I also use it to mean people of Brittish and Germanic descent, i.e. most white Americans. I’m about 2/3 Brittish (mostly Scottish and Welsh) and 1/3 German (Swiss German), with some French.

      I ‘m not down on “Meds”, either, altough I think the Northerners have their shit together more.

      I don’t mean “I’m pro-Anglo-Saxon” to mean “Pro-England”, or “Pro-English”. although technically, they are the Anglo-Saxons (yeah, I know they came from N. Germany and Denmark). My anscestors came on the 2nd Mayflower, First Virginia families, etc.

      I have said I am an Anglophile before. I just love the GOOD stuff about British culture (the Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Pistols, Clash, James Bond movies, Shakespeare, Magna Carta etc.) Cool flag, too.

      I know that the ENGLISH have been the most J-Loving of all groups for a long time (with, lately, the U.S.) It’s because the English have always been into MONEY- that’s why they were on top for so long. Smart motherfuckers.

      British Imperialism? The best kind. Or would you rather be colonized by the Spanish?

      If the English didn’t colonize, other, nastier types would have instead. It’s how countries used to get rich. Russia was just pissed beacuse they lacked ports to pull it ooff- likewise Germany.

      I’m a Germanophile too. The cool stuff- Iron Cross, Red Baron, Von Braun, Marx, Lugers. Panzers. U2. Cool uniforms. Pass on the swastika- too creepy.

      My Uncle served in the Luftwaffe. He is still alive and still a Nazi. I think I understand Nazis like most people do not. Most Neo-Nazis and W-Ns would not be allowed into the real Nazi Party- no Slavs allowed, for instance.

      Hitler was a “genius’ at some stuff (speaking, propaganda) a second-rate mind at other stuff. He was not a first-rate intellect- read Mein Kampf.

      Hitler blew it for Germans and Germany, and ensured that his nemesis- the Jews, will forever be held in sympathetic light. Way to go, asshole. The Holocaust was the stupidest idea ever (second: Russia in Dec.) Why did he do it? Because he was not sane.

      1. Hitler blew it for Germans and Germany, and ensured that his nemesis- the Jews, will forever be held in sympathetic light. Way to go, asshole. The Holocaust was the stupidest idea ever


        However, as Israhell continues its shenanigans, I think Jews will slowly but surely lose sympathy. They already are, to a certain extent, at least in the international community.

        1. Trouble is, all Americans from W II generation on are raised up to love Israel and all Jewish people, and to defend them, knee-jerk style, no matter what.

          Anything less than that, and you are a Nazi, and in sympathy with “the Terrorists” out to destroy America, God, Freedom, Capitalism, Mom and Apple Pie.

          Every Jesus Freak and fundamentalist I meet loves Israel, and Jews. Unconditionally. They say God (the Jewish One) gave it to them, 5,000 years ago. Only Satan would dare question that!

          They’re just God’s Number One favorite people- it says so in THEIR Book!

      2. I can’t believe I’m reading somebody use music groups as some measure of another country, and “knowing” it or “liking” another country. I’m old enough to be your grandmother, and using that kind of logic, instead of first hand experience is one thing very very wrong with the younger generation (and by younger, I mean anybody under the age of 55). I also hear young people asking each other constantly, “seen {fill in the blank} movie? Seen this movie? Seen that one??? “” As if that were some marker for the other person’s maturity and understanding of a certain situation. Example, seeing some stupid movie about the assassination of JFK, and then assuming ones thoughts/assumptions and knowledge about the JFK and his assassination actually mean something. No, they don’t, you were even born then genius. And that so-called “knowledge” is built on an effing movie, for crissakes. Get real! Stop basing your knowledge on current “music” groups or movies. How retarded to do that.

        1. Easy, Grannie Annie!

          I was just saying I was an Anglophile- then citing some recent cultural examples of very high-quality visual art and music the Brits produced during their most recent cultural “Golden Age”- the 60s, 70s and maybe half the eighties at least.

          I recently finished a seminar on Early English History and was amazed at all that they have accomplished. I was a believer in “English Exceptionalism” a little bit before, but after that class, I realy am convinced. The British maintained their edge on the rest of Europe (off and on) until the end of WWI.

          They had a cultural resurgence in the 1960s and 1970s- The BBC had great productions, Kubrick’s movies, their dominance of Pop Music.

          Are you claiming, Grannie Annie, that the Beatles had no worldwide cultural impact? The Punk and New Wave movements (originating in England) likewise are still influencing our culture.

          I agree with you, Grannie Annie, about young people in general but I’m not young, I do historical research all the time, and just finished a course in the history of British Politics- very enlightening.

          I have a lot of English friends, also. I think I know quite a bit about them, Grannie.

          Oh, and I’ve done some research on JFK., too. Conclusion: Tossup.

          Please don’t call me a retard, Grannie Annie! It hurts my Anglo-Saxon feelings! Say “Hi” to Andy!

  10. To be honest, I prefer continental imperialism over the commercial, maritime, money-grubbing kind (Britain, US, Carthage etc.) Also the Japanese made Korea and Taiwan pretty damn efficient did they not?

  11. I am a Japanophile (Nipophile?) as well, (for their better qualities) but anyone who thinks being colonized by them was a cool thing…

    Well, the Formosa occupation seems maybe the least brutal. And it turned out pretty well. Korea was not cool, and even now, in my opinion, South Korea is fucked up. (sorry- not a Koreaphile).

    The Japs were maybe the most brutal of all colonizing peoples. They were very maritime… and if they weren’t into money…oh, they just wanted all of Asia’s natural resources…not “money”…come on, now!

    They weren’t “commercial”? Maybe not like the U.S. or Britain, but still…

    “Continental” imperialism? Like the Belgians? Yuck! Nice country- fucked up colonies.

    @ Uncle Zhou Q: Aren’t you asian, if I remember correctly?

    1. Yeah, Korean. When I was referring to “continental” I meant Russian Empire, USSR, Third Reich. Belgium was just another maritime nation, although an insigficiant little shit compared to Britain. What do you not like about Korea? I’m not offended, as it sure as hell ain’t my ideal society either.

      1. Korea? I only studied its history briefly. Not a warm and fuzzy place. Very strict, extremely totalitarian rulers. Had a golden age when they were unified (still scary rulers, tho)- then Japan really fucked them over.

        What do I not like? Eating dogs and cats. Ha Ha. Seriously, South Korea is a dirty, polluted, crowded, authoritarian, pro-capitalist dream state. Japan is losing all of its manufacturing to S.Korea because they pay less. S.Korea put all U.S. animators out of biz. They will under-bid anyone, labor wise. Except the Chinese.

        S. Korea makes products that are inferior to Japanese and European stuff. OK quality, though- passable. We’ll all be driving Kias someday (and be killed in action?)

        What I don’t like is that Korea SHOULD be second to Japan only as far as culture- and they’re not. Why? N. Korea? Nevermind. S. Korea? The U.S. occupation there shoulda ended 30 years ago.

  12. Also, Imperial Japan between 1931 and 1945 was a militarist authoritarian power with a strong warrior ethos, not a commercial imperialist power like Britain.

    1. I know about the Japanese warrior ethos. That’s why they fought and colonized the way they did. Just a more primitive, nastier way of doing things, in my opinion.

      I do prefer the post-War Japan, though. They, like the Germans, were extremely advanced and civilized among their own- but behaved barbarously toward outsiders.

      Like ’em or not, the English always took a different approach to colonization. The French took an even more different approach.

      The English always took the more “civilized” – “make ’em English” approach.

      The French chose to “blend in” more to Franca-cize a colony.

      Both of these approaches are less nasty to be on the receiving end of, compared to other Euro imperialists.

      What did Imperial Russia colonize? Besides Alaska?

      What did Imperial Germany colonize? Cameroon? Togo?

      What colonization are you refering to, the Third Reich conquests? The republics and satellites of the U.S.S.R.?

      1. “””My Uncle served in the Luftwaffe. He is still alive and still a Nazi. I think I understand Nazis like most people do not. Most Neo-Nazis and W-Ns would not be allowed into the real Nazi Party””””

        This caught my eye. Would you care to elaborate? How was the Nazi approach to racial pride different from modern day WNs?

        1. Most people have mistaken ideas about Nazis. They think they were “pro-White”. False. They were pro-Nordic / Germanic/ Celtic.

          Just being ” white” was not good enough for them. Slavs, Russians, and others were considered extremely inferior.

          (no, they did not hate “Meds”- they considered them Southern version of Nords- just slightly below Nordics)

          Even if you were racially OK, you had to pass their political test. No liberals, leftists, progessives, commies, socialists, decadents. Death camp for you if you were.

          People think they were pro-Christian. False. They were not religious, some were nominally Christian. Some were into occult stuff. Some were into Old Norse religious stuff- but neither one was their religion- they just weren’t into religion!

          People think they were Socialists. This is laughable. They were the antithesis.

          People think they were vehemently anti-Gay and anti-Black. False. They didn’t talk about it much. Blacks were not an issue in Germany. Blacks were not persecuted in Germany.
          Plenty of Nazis were gay and just stayed in the closet. (if you didn’t- Death CAmp for you- like any other deviant) They didn’t have big witch hunts for them.

          To Nazis, the English, Irish, Scandinavians, even Italians and Spanish were racially OK- and so were most Americans. They didn’t hate us, or the British. They wanted us to stay neutral.

      2. @mott69

        “The English always took the more “civilized” – “make ‘em English” approach.

        The French chose to “blend in” more to Franca-cize a colony.

        Both of these approaches are less nasty to be on the receiving end of, compared to other Euro imperialists.”

        British imperialism was the worse with there engineered famines, conspiring against other European powers like Germany, Russia and the US and constant warfare like in Africa.

        Remember it was the British that created the modern concentration camp during the Boar war.

        Japanese pre WW2 imperialism with its naval fleet was industrialised by Britain and the whole racial movement Eugenics is a British creation.

        Look at all the major event since the time of the American Revolution and Britain has been at the centre of it.

        American today is essentially a colony of Britain and Israel.

        “Most people have mistaken ideas about Nazis.”

        Funny how people never talk about how much of a cesspool Germany was before Hitler came to power during the Weimar era with pornography and openly gay theatre productions, rampant crime coupled with the disastrous economic situation and how much of the banks, media and everything else Jews had a monopoly on which was acquired during the post war period at fire-sale prices.

        Perhaps Jews should have an introspective analysis of why civilized European nations and people around the world had/have such a negative reaction towards Jews leading to the much vaunted outbreaks of anti-Semitism.

        1. Oh wow John, we actually agree. Good post and well written. I do hope you get these spurts of sanity more often. =p

        2. Agree with your above comments about Jews- but I am neither a J-Lover or J-Hater, personally.

          Agree about British-U.S.-Isreal.

          Agree w/ Dota- you say some sane stuff here.

          I am not an apologist for the British at all. Famine? You mean Ireland? That was their nastiest. The Boer War? Nasty as well. They regarding both people as rebellious and under their domain, maybe that explains it- but they weren’t that way in the U.S. Rev.

          You have a strong prejudice against the English- many do. So why don’t you change your name to John U.S.S.R.?

          Plus- aren’t you a racist? Correct me if I’m wrong. Then you should love the English if you think they’re the most racist of all. (they’re not)

          However- to say that they were the worst of all? Come on. Usually only someone from India would say that. And I think they’re wrong.

          Cortez, Pizzarro, Columbus- the Spanish alone were far worse. Don’t have to get into the rest.

          Major event? How about the moon landing? Vietnam War?

          Britain was the number one power on the planet for a few hundred years- so, of course they were at the center of stuff. Which proves…?

        3. “Japanese pre WW2 imperialism with its naval fleet was industrialised by Britain and the whole racial movement Eugenics is a British creation”

          The United States (and I believe Sweden) carried on with eugenics decades after WWII. I don’t think it was racial, but was aimed at retards and other supposed degenerates. I;ve also heard that Planned Parenthood was created in large part to help control the black populace. The pro-life movement says it a lot today, but I don’t think it’s totally fake like many other things the say.

        4. “You have a strong prejudice against the English- many do. So why don’t you change your name to John U.S.S.R.?”

          I think it’s a part of being Scottish.

      3. “What did Imperial Russia colonize? Besides Alaska?”

        Kazan, Siberia, the Cacasus (north and south), Crimea, Central Asia, Outer Manchuria, Eastern Poland, the Baltic counties, Finland, Karelia, etc

        Okay, that was a mix of imperial possesions and settlement areas, but you get the point.

        “What did Imperial Germany colonize?”

        Prussia did take a large part of Poland during the partitions.

        1. Thanks for clarifying.
          If John is a Scottish Nationalist, however, the acronym UK would be abhorrent to him, no? (UK stands for the original unification of England and Scotland). No?

          Thanks for details on Russia. I still think they wouldn’t be considered great colonial power. (The Baltics, yah) They tried, though, I’ll give them that!

        2. @mott69

          “I am not an apologist for the British at all. Famine? You mean Ireland?”

          No India where millions died.

          “Perhaps for him. Ferguson does not mention that during this “magical” childhood he was surrounded by the very recent survivors of Gulags and torture centres built by his beloved Empire. Less than a decade before, the mass British theft of Kenyan land has prompted a backlash. Thousands of destitute Kenyans began to fight against them. They responded by herding more than 300,000 Kenyans into gulags to be whipped, castrated and raped. Many had their eardrums burst with knives, others were doused in paraffin and burned alive. The soldiers were told they could kill anyone they wanted “so long as he is black” – and they slew more than 50,000. Ah, such mischief.

          Today, Ferguson poses as somebody who is simply providing a hard-headed balance sheet of Empire. Yes, there were “drawbacks”, he admits – but we have to weigh them against the good things. The problem is that his calculations consistently underestimate or ignore the massive crimes of Empire, and grossly overstate the benefits. His historical judgement is constantly skewed, both by his childhood affection and by his almost punk-style desire to spit at historical orthodoxies.

          Let’s look at two specific examples. Ferguson repeatedly praises the empire for integrating the poorest parts of the world into the global economy, making them richer in the process. But far from building up India to make it capable of self-rule, in reality the British destroyed it. When Clive of India arrived in Calcutta, he described it – as all visitors did – as “extensive, populous and as rich as the city of London.” It was a place of such “richness and abundance [that] neither war, pestilence nor oppression could destroy [it].” But he did his best. Within the first century of British occupation, the population fell from 150,000 to 30,000 as its industries were wrecked. By the time the British left, it was one of the poorest places in the world. Jawaharlal Nehru, the man the Indian people elected after Ferguson’s heroes finally left, explained, “Those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are poorest today. Indeed, some kind of chart might be drawn up to indicate the close connection between length of British rule and progressive growth of poverty.”

          For ordinary Indians,Ferguson’s ‘development’ meant starvation and foreign pillage. While Britain’s per capita income increased in real terms by 347 percent during the time it owned India, there was no increase at all in per capita income for Indians. None. Indeed, in the last half of the nineteenth century – the period when Ferguson says the Empire’s “elevated aspirations” were most evident – it fell by more than 50 percent.

          Or look at how Ferguson describes the British Empire’s conscious policy of mass starvation of Indians in the 1870s and 1890s. In reality, severe nature climate disruption hit India, and there was massive crop failure. The British viceroy – Lord Lytton, appointed because he was Queen Victoria’s favourite poet – declared that grain shipments to London must continue, by force if necessary. The institutions that Ferguson presents as Britain’s glorious gift to India – the railways and telegraph lines – were in fact used to more efficiently steal and ship out India’s food, so Londoners could enjoy them over breakfast. Some gift.

          And even this was not enough. Lytton went further and declared all relief efforts illegal. Anybody who tried to provide food to starving Indians was several punished. The result? One journalist noted that the train lines of India were strewn with “bony remnants of human beings” begging for grain. “Their very eyeballs were gone… Their fleshless jaws and skulls were supported on necks like those of plucked chickens. Their bodies – they had none; only the framework was left.” Some 29 million innocent people died, a crime worthy of Stalin and Mao.”


          “That was their nastiest. The Boer War? Nasty as well. They regarding both people as rebellious and under their domain, maybe that explains it- but they weren’t that way in the U.S. Rev.”

          What about the Opium wars?

          Anyway the point is they create situations using a third party countries or groups as a proxy to control foreign countries like we are seeing just now in Libya or how they support Islamic terrorism/insurgencies around the world in resource and geopolitical significant areas for essentially global dominion.

          ”You have a strong prejudice against the English- many do. So why don’t you change your name to John U.S.S.R.?”

          You’re not that A German idiot commentator at VOR are you?

          Communism was supported mainly by Britain and British interests in the US and Europe with allied foreign European powers who up to the coup of 1917 Russia and the US were allied countries in fact it was Russia who aided Lincoln during the civil war against British attempts to partition the US by supporting the Confederacy.

          You seem to be pro-British.

          “Plus- aren’t you a racist? Correct me if I’m wrong. Then you should love the English if you think they’re the most racist of all. (they’re not)”

          No I am not racist I am anti-racist that’s why I am against the British/US lead NWO.

          “Major event? How about the moon landing? Vietnam War?”

          Vietnam War was at least in part about control of the Asian drug trade which currently supports George Soros backed opposition in Burma.
          British SAS were involved in the Vietnam war.

          As for the moon landing Britain was involved but that was a good thing.

          “However- to say that they were the worst of all? Come on. Usually only someone from India would say that. And I think they’re wrong.”

          They are the worst of them all due to the fact until other Empire with the exception of France, US and others there colonial Empire was based purely on foreign accusation which is essentially the model for the current US Empire which FDR tried to abolish in the post WW2 era.

          “Britain was the number one power on the planet for a few hundred years- so, of course they were at the center of stuff. Which proves…?”

          If they are the centre of stuff it proves they are the head of the NWO kept in line by a City of London financial monetary system that is now falling apart and will collapse once the bailout money dries up.

        3. @Wade in MO

          ” I think it’s a part of being Scottish.”

          LOL! There is no animosity between Scotland and England. Stop getting your viewpoints from Hollywood films like Braveheart.

          “If John is a Scottish Nationalist, however, the acronym UK would be abhorrent to him, no? (UK stands for the original unification of England and Scotland). No?”

          I’m not a Scottish nationalist anyway and I don’t believe in nationalism which causes conflict between various nations. Look what is did to Yugoslavia.

        4. @ John Scotland- I won’t get into a tit-for tat bullshit war with you.

          I use relative terms- everything is relative- disagree- tough shit.

          I make statements that contain generalities. Can’t handle it- tough shit.

          I defy you to find a major group, country, that hasn’t done fucked up shit. (don’t go finding some pacifist tribe somewhere).

          This world has been full of victims and victimizers since day one.

          When I say the British may have been more benevolent- its in overall, worldwide, relative terms.

          Why do people think that groups have to be all bad, or all good? That is child-like thinking. There is plenty of guilt to go around.

          If you think India, Nigeria, or any other shithole is worse off now because of Europeans you are high on something.

          Opium Wars? The Chinese were using trade war tactics to try and bankrupt England- in response- England fucked them over.

          Mau Maus? Ferguson is a douchebag but your Hari guy’s facts are very exaggerrated. It was horrible- it’s called war- yes, the Limeys are guilty of atrocities- all sides were.

        5. @mott69 (A German)

          “Mau Maus? Ferguson is a douchebag but your Hari guy’s facts are very exaggerrated. It was horrible- it’s called war- yes, the Limeys are guilty of atrocities- all sides were.”

          Well isn’t that nice seeing how British and American commentators act as the moral guardians who are involved in foreign resource wars of zero security threat to the mainland unlike other Empires.

          They are still acting as colonial masters around the world financing global terrorist/separatist and criminal networks and through NGO’s like NED installing regimes, financing phoney human rights groups, political parties, media, youth movements, etc.

          “If you think India, Nigeria, or any other shithole is worse off now because of Europeans you are high on something.”

          Bit of white supremacism there.

          Looting their countries sure as hell didn’t help. And joining different opposing regional tribes together to create states like Nigeria and Iraq is a classic divide and conquer strategy.

          “Opium Wars? The Chinese were using trade war tactics to try and bankrupt England- in response- England fucked them over.”

          What because they refused the importation and sale of Opium into China how evil of them.

        6. @John Hates UK-

          I do thank you for pointing out Brit atrocities in Kenya and India. I’ll research those more thoroughly now. Hadn’t looked into either in depth.

          Opium Wars- Started by China closing its markets to all other countries- esp. British. Caused enormous drain of silver (the world’s currency at the time) from England (who bought tons of Chinese shit) to China (who said they didn’t want to buy any Brit stuff).

          You ought to know your own UK history, John.

          Its called a trade war and in those days it was like declaring actual war. Brits got back at them by selling them opium, reversing the imbalance and fucking them over to teach them a lesson about starting a trade war. Chinese are still doing this kind of shit.

          It’s not white supremacist to say that those countries are not worse off NOW because of the Europeans. They’d be shitholes anyway- that’s my point.

          You can call me a Euro Supremacist, but I’m not a white supremacist. Fuck you for saying that.

          I’m not a German, either.My uncle is not a blood relation. My Swiss ancestors came here in 1700.

          “India was a great, rich country before the whites got there” No, it was a shithole with a horrible caste system. They, like China,did’nt have industrialization. That’s the real reason for their decline.

          I’m done talking to you, John. You are a schizoid .

  13. @mott
    How were the National Socialists the antithesis of socialists? Just by their name alone, that seems counterintuitive. Their economic policies were not capitalist at all in the Anglo sense.

  14. I think I said this to you before- here goes again.

    The Nazis put Socialist in their name back when were first starting out in the 1920s.

    They did it at a time when Socialist and Communist parties were very popular and threatenibg to take over. They used “Socialist ” in their name to try and steal members and votes from the real Socialist parties, who they did not like.

    They also wanted to appeal to the German working class. It was a trick.

    The Nazi party was Socialist in the same way that the Democratic Republic of North Korea is a Democratic Republic. In other words- they’re not at all a democratic republic.

    Parties and countries put certain words in their names for political, disingenous reasons. Sane people must disregard what a group chooses to call itself.

    That said, the Nazis did express some socialist-type ideas and sentiments here and there- most which was just blatant lies. They supposedly promised a kind of “chicken in every pot” for all pure Germans, for example. So what.

    They hated Socialism and everything it stood for.

    You’re right, tho- they did not like Capitalism, either- especially U.S. / British / Jewish style. They hated the stock market, and were no lovers of liberal economics and free markets. You’re right on!

    They liked Fascist- Nationalist type economics- which is neither Capitalist nor Socialist. More like mercantilist, protectionist, all for the Nation stuff.

    1. You’re point is well taken, but you have to admit that relatively speaking, fascist economics is closer to Soviet economics than the Anglo-Judaic neoliberal financial plutocratic system.

  15. Yes and no. Both have central planning, no “real” free market. Both authoritarian dictatorships. But there the similarities end.

    Fascist economics uses “private” state-influenced companies, and fucks over workers just like a really bad capitalist.

    Philosophically, they are opposite.
    No worker’s paridise, pie-in-the-sky stuff. No equality for all stuff. No Marxist or socialist sentiments. Just Hyper-Nationalist psuedo-Capitalism/Plutocracy/Oligarchy. Of course the state has the final say, but that’s not the same as state ownership/control.

    I agree, though, that on outside, the two systems appear to be more similar, but deceptively so.

    1. I’ve read that the 3rd Reich had a strong social welfare system for the German Volk
      and it was more worker-friendly than plutocratic Britain. Goebbels even bragged in a speech that NS was the healthy, authentic form of socialism.

      1. The Nazis did have a social welfare system- only for real Germans, after they killed evryone else or sent them to work camps. That’s Socialism? Nah.

        Pro-worker? They replaced half their workers with prison slave labor. Regular Germans were needed for the army. The conditions at the factories were not cool.

        Don’t think I would call WW II Britain a Plutocracy. So many democratic reforms had taken place since the 1830s. Britain was was pretty democratic by then.

        You believe something Goebbels says in a speech? Say it ain’t so , Joe!

        Goebbels has some other great quotes…let’s see…something about a “lie”?
        (/:=)) Seig Heil!

  16. This chain is both shocking and insane! You have a “Bay Area Guy”, who’s either a ‘Republican Plant’ or simply a radically, misinformed, troglodyte! His post after post w/ not so subtle attempts to persuade us to NOT vote Democratic are bizarre- incorrect- misinformed…and to paraphrase ‘he’s not going to vote Democratic but he’s not going to vote republican either’ !? So, you’re made yourself utterly irrelevant. Go Green Party?!
    Next, several of the insane participants here are also ‘not so subtly’ supporting the Nazi Party?! Sure, they murdered millions of men, women, children and infants in cold blood and terrorized millions more w/ sheer, unmitigated EVIL but hey “they weren’t Socialist” and they had “Health Care”….
    I got it though, I think…some of you are saying ‘Hitler had some good ideas, Jews are bad people but you’re not antisemitic’?, it’s just that when “Jews are in charge, people BECOME antisemitic after”…man is that some sick fuckery! If I’ve ever seen it!
    Although Israel, our fierce and ONLY ALLY is a tiny sliver of a country, surrounded by huge neighboring countries that would love to annihilate America- you don’t necessarily support them!?!?
    Well, I must say- it was interesting here.

      1. Yeah, but like waiting in line, or sitting in traffic, I feel bad about all the time you spend in life typing “Look, you’re banned.”

        1. I love to ban these idiots. It’s a blast. Makes my day. It’s so easy not to get banned here. You really have to be a fool to get banned. Read the comments policy. How simple can you get?

    1. Scott- You’re right- Israel is our ONLY ally. Only a tiny, sliver or country. Thank the Jew-Gawd for that!

      That’s why we need to nuke them.

      NUKE OUR ALLIES, I SAY! Allies just fuck us over, anyways!

      Besides, if we nuke them, it’ll give Ahmadinejad nothing to do with his time. That’ll fix him!

      Surrounded by countries that would love to annihilate America?

      Oh, yeah, like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, countries we give billions to.

      Oh, maybe Saudi Arabia. But only two bulildings at a time! HAHAH (9/11 joke!)

      You’ve got some balls calling other people “sick fucks”. Look in the mirror, Mr. Israel Lover.

      We don’t like no Israel-Firsters round here, so git!

    2. You actually have it backwards- it’s Israel that only has one ally.

      That’s right- it’s the U.S Goverment (USrael for short).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)