Win a copy of Straw Bale Building Details this week in the Straw Bale House forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
permaculture forums growies critters building homesteading energy monies kitchen purity ungarbage community wilderness fiber arts art permaculture artisans regional education experiences global resources the cider press projects digital market permies.com private forums all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
master stewards:
  • Nicole Alderman
  • r ranson
  • paul wheaton
  • Anne Miller
  • Mike Jay
  • Jocelyn Campbell
stewards:
  • Devaka Cooray
  • Burra Maluca
  • Joseph Lofthouse
garden masters:
  • Dave Burton
  • Greg Martin
gardeners:
  • Mike Barkley
  • Shawn Klassen-Koop
  • Pearl Sutton

If we can split the atom we can live without borders.  RSS feed

 
Posts: 158
Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa (34 degrees south)
33
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
On our way to swim in the ocean on Wednesday morning, we were chatting in the the car about Human Rights day. As we drove, I gave a little lecture explaining how on the 21st of March 1960, 69 unarmed protesters were gunned down outside a police station in Sharpville. “Why were they protesting?” asks Mandisa. “They were protesting about the “pass laws”. They burned the papers that they were required to carry as evidence that they had permission to leave the “homelands” in order to seek work in the city”. Mandisa silently nodded her head in the backseat as she continued to flip through Instagram, but Poppina said: ”You know, come to think of it, not much has really changed since 1960! If you walk down any Hillbrow street today, you run the risk of being thrown in the back of a police van if you don’t have the correct, ID papers, Refugee papers or Asylum papers”

I thought about this statement as I bobbed in the ocean that morning. Mandisa and I swam to the end of the pier. Poppina strolled on the beach. “What has changed since 1960?” I asked myself. Yes, things are much better for a whole lot of people that happen to have the right papers, but really, we have fallen into exactly the same thinking of the apartheid government. Then, the state said: “If your ancestors come from the wrong side of the Kei river, you go back there and do whatever your ancestors did there” All that has actually happened since 1960, is that the state has now just changed the rivers that they choose to use as reference points for their cruelty and brutality. “You dare not set your foot on “our” side of the Limpopo River. Go back to where you came from! Go do there whatever it is that your ancestors did there!”

We feel good about ourselves and justify our cruelty by referring  to concepts such as “The Constitution” or “The Sovereign State”. My friends, I am writing to you today to remind you that these, and many such like fabrications, are merely “concepts”. They are just ideas formed in the minds of people. They are neither real nor tangible.  What is real and what is tangible is the tremendous suffering of many millions of people across the globe and especially in africa that are unable to flee drought, famine, war, rape and slavery because of the notional concept of a “sovereign state”, with borders that cannot be freely crossed without risking death and imprisonment. People are dying (and worse) for the sake of these concepts. The “lucky” few that make it out of whatever desperate situation that has driven them to give up their ancestral home and their families, find themselves in a situation in a country like South Africa perhaps, where they are, at best, treated as second class citizens. They struggle to get a bank account, they struggle to own land, they struggle to get the same wages as those who have the “correct papers”, they struggle to access education. They are harassed by the police, they are exploited by the criminal underworld.

As we speak, right now, somewhere north of the Limpopo, young girls are being captured by rebels and sold into slavery. As we speak, right now, children are embarking on foot on a thousand mile journey in the hope of escaping the hell that has driven them to find the courage to flee. As we speak, in this town of ours,  young girls from Somalia or Zimababwe, or the DRC or Sudan, with no papers, no means of support and no hope, are trapped in a living hell of drug induced sex slavery. Tell me my friends, why, why, why do we think of this unspeakable injustice in different terms to the way we have come to think about the crime of apartheid?

We are deluding ourselves to think that this is in any way OK. It must stop now!

I am not a prophet and I do not pretend to be one, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that we will look back at this time and we will judge ourselves for tolerating this situation. We will be embarrassed that we committed our energy to attempts to rid the oceans of plastic, arguing against backyard dog breeders and whether our leaders should be permitted to smash each other’s heads with water jugs. We will judge ourselves for dedicating our time to this pettiness while this tragedy of human suffering continues as the result of our silence in condoning the rubbish idea of “Sovereign” borders.

The reality is that our species is a wandering species. From the time when we first emerged from the Cradle of Humankind near Krugersdorp, we have wandered. We have moved our families on to new lands when the conditions we were facing became unpleasant. This movement over thousands and thousands of years was a gradual process, but a fundamental ingredient to our continued success as a species.

Impermeable national boundaries are unnatural! They cause untold suffering and must abolished without delay. We are a species gifted with profound intelligence. We split the atom.  We send our representatives to the moon. We have credible plans to colonise Mars. Trust me, we can figure out how to overcome the challenges that emerge out of the removal of national boundaries. What do you think?
 
pollinator
Posts: 1267
Location: RRV of da Nort
119
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Timothy Hewitt-Coleman wrote: What do you think?



Even if they had 'ranges' that were considered perhaps more 'our' hunting ground than 'theirs', there is the suggestion that lots of pre-colonialism tribes (co-)existed without borders.  At least according to the definition(s) proposed by western science, splitting the atom was not an important milestone in their cultural history.  I'm wondering if existing relatively peaceably without hard borders is more a factor of wisdom than intelligence.
 
pollinator
Posts: 1168
Location: Los Angeles, CA
218
books chicken food preservation forest garden hugelkultur urban
  • Likes 6
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The very definition of a garden is a space that is defined, usually by some sort of fence or wall.  Walls, for all their negative connotations, allow the beauty of distinction to flourish and provide structure to protect and surround.  A wall around a garden offers a chance for a gardener to create and preserve something beautiful.  I don't apologize for the wall around my garden, but I invite as many in to share and enjoy it as I can reasonably invite.  Over the years, hundreds have come into by garden, eaten from the fruit trees, sat and watched the chickens, and generally enjoyed the space.  But at the end of the day, there is a gate and I control who comes and goes.  This preserves it space and makes it special.  I think that that metaphor carries to national boundaries.

I wish the world were safe enough that such structures like boarders and fences were not needed, but it isn't.  It never has been.  If there is anything we know from 6,000 years (give or take) or recorded human history, it is that man's warlike pride and unquenchable thirst for power has repeatedly led to conflict, most commonly over land.  In the words of Robert Frost, good fences make good neighbors.  

I would gently disagree with your premise that humanity is a rootless and wondering creature.  I believe we find our greatest fulfillment when we are allowed to create, build and establish cultures that are grounded in a unique location.  I know that I personally find greater and greater satisfaction with each passing year as the roots of my 60+ fruits trees sink deeper and deeper into the rich soil that I've been building for close to 2 decades.  Psychologists speak of the critical importance of a sense of place to the well-being of both children and adults—a sense of being grounded and secure, known and established within a community.

A study was done some years ago where they built a playground out in the middle of a field.  There was the usual playground equipment, and there were benches around the exterior where parents could sit while their kids explored the swings, slides and such.

They observed a series of parents and their children use the playground.  The children were selected for a range of ages, both boys and girls, from a wide variety of backgrounds.  The researchers told the parents to just sit on the bench and then encourage the children to play.  Then they simply watched how far the children would stray away from mom or dad on the bench.  The researchers would map the distance the kids moved and timed how long they stayed away from their parents.

After they'd gathered a significant amount of data on the distance children would go away from their parent(s), they changed the playground.  They simply added a fence around it.  Then they brought in a new set of children and parents (again, tracking them for basic demographic information).

They were surprised to find that once the playground was fenced, the children wandered farther from their parents, and played on the equipment far longer.  They saw this across the spectrum of ages and other demographic categories.  Fascinating, isn't it?  By simply adding a wall around the outside of the playground, the children felt more secure and more free to explore, play and have little adventures.  It seems counter-intuitive, but walls and boundaries create the conditions where children feel free and more creative.  Good walls not only make good neighbors, but healthy and secure children.  Yes, they'll venture outside those walls in due time, but homes without structure (both physical and relational) are not healthy for childhood development.  This has been shown again and again in the research.

Boundaries (even social boundaries) offer security and freedom.  It's wired right into the human psyche.  There are public spaces and private spaces.  Every society has them. The same principles that are true for raising healthy children are the same for healthy societies.  


I will work aggressively to deal with the underlying causes of poverty, refugees and displaced people.  I've spent my entire adult life doing just that.  In my humble opinion, simply removing borders will only bring about more chaos.  Evil people with sick ideologies and violent cultures must be contained or they'll destroy the entire garden.  History has shown this again and again.

Thank you for sharing your story and your perspective.

 
Posts: 92
Location: Mediterranean-Temperate transition zone
15
cat chicken forest garden greening the desert hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Likes 5
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Timothy Hewitt-Coleman wrote:If we can split the atom we can live without borders...  we can figure out how to overcome the challenges that emerge out of the removal of national boundaries. What do you think?


Hmmm... the way I see it is "We split the atom because we had borders."  The atom was split for war, not for peace.  War occurs because nation states create positions of power where the few can control and direct the labour of the many.  Such positions of power invariably attract psychopaths and sociopaths.  Psychopaths — by their very nature — aren't going to get along with each other.  Thus petty differences between the psychopaths in power result in conflict between nation states... and the development of technology to fight and 'win' such conflicts.

Large organisations — like the nation state — are the problem.  They enable psychopathy and conflict on a grand scale.

The solution, however, is not an international state.  If one removes current borders, thoroughly corrupt/incompetent organisations like the United Nations and the World Bank will step into the power vacuum uncontested.  We know what happens then:  "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."  The solution to a small amount of cancer isn't a large amount of cancer.  A big tumour isn't better than a small tumour.

So, in my mind, the solution is to fracture all large organisations into such small pieces that they cannot pose a threat to one another.  Such organisations will no longer be attractive to psychopaths... and pointless, ego-driven conflict — in which only the innocent seem to suffer — will be minimised.

In a world where 'private property' exists, borders are a natural consequence.  If we are unwilling/unable to eliminate the concept of 'private property', then borders will remain and the best we can do is make them as short as possible.

Simple steps for a better world:
  • Eliminate as much governance and government as possible.
  • Reduce it to a bare minimum.
  • Devolve 'power' to the most local, responsive and introverted level possible.
  • Break up large corporations.
  • Disempower the psychopaths.
  • Put into place mechanisms that prevent the regrowth/emergence of large organisations.

  • At the heart of the problem is this:  The larger an organisation becomes, the more disconnected its leaders become from its members, and the more disconnected (as a whole) it becomes from reality.  Such organisations will inevitably and increasingly do more harm than good.  Intent is irrelevant.  Reform is impossible.  Size is deterministic.

    tl;dr:  Small is beautiful.
     
    Posts: 430
    43
    bee duck fish food preservation forest garden fungi trees woodworking
    • Likes 3
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator


    In a world where 'private property' exists, borders are a natural consequence.  If we are unwilling/unable to eliminate the concept of 'private property', then borders will remain and the best we can do is make them as short as possible.

    Simple steps for a better world:
    Eliminate as much governance and government as possible.
    Reduce it to a bare minimum.
    Devolve 'power' to the most local, responsive and introverted level possible.
    Break up large corporations.
    Disempower the psychopaths.
    Put into place mechanisms that prevent the regrowth/emergence of large organisations.

    At the heart of the problem is this:  The larger an organisation becomes, the more disconnected its leaders become from its members, and the more disconnected (as a whole) it becomes from reality.  Such organisations will inevitably and increasingly do more harm than good.  Intent is irrelevant.  Reform is  



    Beautifully phrased.  I have a door on my house for a reason.  I even have a lock on it.  I lost the key years ago, but I lock the door at night.  Same with borders.

    The best solution is to make the borders as small as possible, down to a human level where a human judgement and response can be given.  If a hungry child comes to me, I, as a reasonably normal human, want to feed them.  If a big, aggressive guy with mean eyes, claiming to be a hungry child, wants the same, I can so "No" and keep him out.  Also, if I agree to feed a child, it's out of my families pocket, not some nameless organization with limitless resources.
    When things are controlled by govt policy, they remove that personal judgement and that personal responsibility and things go to hell in a hurry.  Either hungry children are refused or predators are allowed into your area.  It's not wise to let in everyone who wants free entry into my house.  Nor do I feel I need to provide the same amount of care to everyone.  I feel that I have a fairly high degree of responsibility for the welfare of my immediate family.  As they become more distant from me, I feel less responsibility.  I'm not sure if this is philosophically or religiously justified, but it is my feeling.  From what I can see, this is most peoples attitude.   Since none of us (not even governments) can do all things for all people, we should focus on those closest to us.

    I watched recently a youtube video by Jordan Peterson you tube jordan peterson where he comments on nationalism as a response to even larger governments.  His analysis is that as the organization gets bigger, the bureaucracy gets much bigger and less efficient, less responsive and harder to control.  The costs of the government begin to outnumber the benefits.  I agree with him, but feel that maybe he didn't take it small enough.  Rather than a powerful national government, we need powerful local governments with the national basically keeping us from fighting amongst ourselves and uniting us in the event of an attack.  Actually, that's kind of what the original US govt was.  The problem is that in the inevitable face of a threat, we allow the govt to get larger, then afterwards we can't get the genie back into the lamp.

    I think that a 'human' response is required at borders.  The problem is, keeping out the predators while allowing their victims a safe place.  The problem really is less borders and more predatory treatment of people by people.  If you allow the predators into your country, that doesn't mean they will quit being predators, it just means you've simply given them access to a larger, maybe more fertile hunting ground, and maybe prey less tuned into their methods.  What is really needed is a change of heart, in large numbers of people.

    As a side note, the idea that prehistoric peoples were peaceful is seriously suspect and mostly wishful thinking.  Being people, they had 'their' areas and would defend them.  Kentucky was not called the 'dark and bloody ground' because of european involvement.  I remember reading in the 60s and 70s about the Maya, who archaeologists claimed, lived in peace.  That lasted until we learned to read what they wrote.  They warred often.  The only thing that has ever stopped people from fighting was religious belief (or philosophy if you prefer), which worked exactly as long as it took someone else to weaponize it and create 'us' and 'them' with it.

    I remember years ago reading about a study paid for by the govt of Zamabwe to get reparations from the british govt for all the farm land they stole from the locals.  The results of the study were that after the british imposed the 'Pax Britannica' the locals had far more farm land than before.  Between the various groups there were very large 'no man's lands' where no one could settle because the enemy group would kill them.  The europeans settled in the 'no mans lands' and after peace was imposed the local groups expanded out to the limits of the european lands.  I am not trying to justify the european colinization of everywhere else, just pointing out that, with maybe a few exceptions, there was not a lot of peace before they arrived.  
     
    pollinator
    Posts: 4339
    Location: Anjou ,France
    240
    • Likes 1
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    I think the op made a great post Nationalism is a great evil and has caused the death of millions and will continue to do so alas .
    I also think the idea that small gov is the solution quite strange and yet another victory for the confusopoly because most of the ideas that are talked about being solved are not cured by having a small govt or an even smaller govt but are actually made worse by having a small govt .
    Take education , if the education system does not work then vote for someone who will reform it not abolish it . Home schooling does not work for everyone .Some  People want to know more than their perants :-)
    If your medical system does not work then vote for someone who will fix it and not be afraid to take on the vampires of big pharma and health insurance that want to suck your country dry .
    If you need more ennviormental protection then dont vote for those who would get rid of  it and who are in the pockets of the oil companies .
    Your police service does not protect you then the solution is not to get a gun but to vote for reform of the police .
    I could go on . The only reason for having small govt is so the rich pay less tax .
    Many years ago I read a great play at school called a man for all seasons in this play the son in law  of the protaginist says "I would remove all the laws in the kingdom to get at the devil! " the protaginist replys but when that day comes who will protect you from the devil when you get to him if the're  no laws? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/

    David
     
    Mick Fisch
    Posts: 430
    43
    bee duck fish food preservation forest garden fungi trees woodworking
    • Likes 2
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    One of my favorite movies is "A Man for All Seasons".  It offered some great insights on integrity and power.

    I agree that there are major problems with nationalism, mainly because it creates an "us" and a "them" and is often used as a tool for aggression.  It may also be used for defense though.  But the other side we are starting to see now, is globalism which is an unknown factor.

    The real problem is too much power in the hands of individuals, whether they are roman senators, chinese party officials, or american presidents or congressmen.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I've recently become aware of some carve outs my own govt. leadership has creating exempting them from many of the laws they pass.  

    The point I was trying to make is that the smaller (meaning more local) the government making the decisions, the easier it is for people to control their government.  Corruption on a city or county level can be dealt with easier than national level corruption, because the participants are closer to the voters.  On a national level, you have to motivate a lot more people.  Also, minus the internet, most of the news, etc. is controlled by a very small group that may not by interested in supporting my cause.  (Even on the internet, there are a few groups that control most access.  Since all politics are local, the people on the other side of the country may not pay any attention to the problems my area is facing.  

    The smaller the group, the closer the leadership is to the rest of the people and the easier it is to effect change.  

    The record of powerful national govt in killing their own in the 20th century isn't good.  Russia (Stalin) about 30 million, China (the great leap forward) about 45 million, the russian genocide in the 30's of the Ukraine (about 5 million), Pol Pot (maybe a couple of million).  I'm sure I've left out a lot of groups that don't come to my mind.  Couple that with the tendency of big governments to put their nose where it doesn't belong.  (I'm american, the american media is still screaming about russian collusion by Trump (which isn't illegal and has never really had any compelling evidence) when my own government goes in and militarily topples foreign governments on a regular basis and is constantly trying to interfere with other governments operations.  Hell, our previous president openly sent his team over Israel during their elections to see what they could do about defeating the current prime minister.  (I'm not trying to defend either our current or past leader, just pointing out the inconsistancy.

    There is a need for larger than local organization, since individuals or even small towns may not have the resources for major public works (sewage systems, water works, road systems, national defense).

    So I still feel that the most power I can get down to my local level, the better.  I can effect local police activity a lot easier than national.  In the end though, you are responsible for your own safety and your own behavior.  Looking for the govt. to solve your problems is not the action of a responsible human
    being.  Governments do get things done, but they aren't very efficient and they are as likely to make the wrong choice as the right one.  Sometimes the solution isn't to throw money at it, which seems to be the typical response.

     
    David Livingston
    pollinator
    Posts: 4339
    Location: Anjou ,France
    240
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    Hi mike
    I noticed you quoted Mr Peterson who stated that all govt endeavors are inefficient I admit that this is true however he then tends to unquestionably accept the preposition that the private sector can do any better :-) on only has to examine the financing of health care in the USA as compared to ( insert any other western country of choice ) to see that may not be true . Whilst as a believer in democracy in a similar vein to Churchill - it's the least worst system - I see small govt as being susceptible to more pressure that big govt if only for the fact it cost more to bribe bigger institutions :-)

    David
     
    John Weiland
    pollinator
    Posts: 1267
    Location: RRV of da Nort
    119
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Mick Fisch wrote:One of my favorite movies is "A Man for All Seasons".  It offered some great insights on integrity and power.



    I'll digress a bit for Easter Sunday and add that I think just *seeing* "A Man for All Seasons" dates an individual and I saw it many times as a rerun on TV in the early 70s......even talked a high-school principal into letting me watch it during study hall time in the school chapel, long before VCRs, DVDs, streaming, 'clouds', etc.  It is a brilliant and thoughtful story and of course the acting, superb.  My favorite line, uttered with disappointed sarcasm, after Thomas More was betrayed by Roper: "It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales!."

    Just musing, but it seems that one of the most 'cementing' aspects of tribal life is the heavy dose of blood relationship running through them.  If one builds into the ethic or cosmological view of that population/community that the very earth is 'kin', then conceivably it should be a fairly short leap to consider other communities/populations as an extension of that larger biosphere.  Not wishing to be permanently bordered against other elements of the natural world, although temporary bordering against wind, snow, rain, cold is understandable, that ethic would perhaps not readily entertain the desire for a fixed, permanent border against other populations.
     
    Mick Fisch
    Posts: 430
    43
    bee duck fish food preservation forest garden fungi trees woodworking
    • Likes 1
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    I agree with your assesment.  There used to be an old Charlie Pride country song that went "You know we're all His children, His next of kin.  That's the way it began.  No matter where you're going or where you've been, your part of the family of man."  If we could get that concept spread a little wider, things would be better.  Personally, my faith system points me in that way.  Others might want to use a different vehicle to arrive at the concept of one united mankind.  The proof is in the pudding.  I'm less concerned about how you get to the concept than you getting there.

    I believe that governments can be quite efficient, if they are small.  I was bemoaning the govt burocracy I work in at one point to one of my brother-in-laws, who is a mid level manager for Microsoft.  He commented that the burocracy was simply a problem of scale.  His observation was that all of the problems I was whining about were present in his company, but at a smaller scale, because the Federal Government is way bigger than Microsoft.  Increased size means increased burocracy, it's unavoidable.  

    In every system of govt, the basic problem is to get wise, moral and brave people in positions of authority.  Probably the potentially most efficient govt is a monarchy.  I'm not in favor of it because of its basic flaw.  It has the same problem that fools or rascals inevitably get into power, and there's no easy mechanism to get them out.

    My feelings about capitalism and free enterprise are similar to Churchills about democracy.  It's the worst system, except for all of the other systems.  Many of the problems in modern capitalism are the same as the government.  TOO BIG.  What is even worse is the closed system of 'crony capitalism' that is endemic at this time.  

    In my mind there are several models of capitalism.  Each has it's modern, real world equivelants.  

    The model that defenders of capitalism like to trot out is the baker on the corner, baking products for his customers/neighbors.  It's a warm, comfortable image that is reflected in some real world businesses.  

    The model attackers of capitalism present is either a viking raid or a roman mine, operated using disposable slave labor.  Both of these models have been in vogue for several years.  In my mind, the best way to judge a particular model or system is, does it leave increased productivity and greater contentment and prosperity in it's wake among it's customers and workers.  The viking raid, while prosperous for the vikings, was basically mining the productivity of the areas they 'visited'.  I think the same can be said for some of the mergers, corporate takeovers, etc over the last several years.  While profitable for a few, they often didn't result in increased productivity and basically mined the resources built up in previous decades.  The slave labor model in a perennial favorite with big businesses and especially credit card companies.

    One of the reasons the Japanese did so well for a while was that they transferred their previous feudal loyalties from the castle to the company they worked for.  The owners of the companies seemed to reflect that same feudal loyalty back (there were responibilities inherent on both sides of traditional systems).  Workers for japanese companies had much more security than in some other countries.

    While I think everyone wants some level of government involvement in business (to prevent fly-by-night businesses from deceiving people and/or selling products that physically hurt people (meth might be a good example)), government interferance in free trade can, and usually is, manipulated by big businesses or other governments to slant the playing field in their favor.  

    Decades ago I had a friend who was just finishing his residency to become a doctor.  He was as obstetrician.  At the time he told me that a small percentage of births had either an imperfect child (some sort of evident handicap).  Whenever this happened, the doctor is inevitably sued.  At that time, the insurance for a good obstetrician was about $50,000 a year.  Since the cost is passed directly on to the customer, and at that time the doctor made about $1,000 per delivery (with the additional pre and post natal care), this meant that the general practitioners were forced out, since they had to deliver 50 babies a years to break even.  It also jacked the costs of having a baby way up.

    I could (and if I'm not careful, will) let my comments devolve into a rant against lawyers, but will try to save it by summarizing.

    Things are complicated.  The more people you get involved in something, the larger the system, the more complicated it gets, rapidly!  Hence, my comment on the need of the power to be dropped to the lowest level possible.  (Even this won't fix the problem entirely, corrupt and scheming people are the problem, but it will make it easier to deal with).
     
    If we don't do the shopping, we won't have anything for dinner. And I've invited this tiny ad:
    One million tiny ads for $25
    https://permies.com/t/94684/million-tiny-ads
    • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
    • New Topic
    Boost this thread!