He was an insider. And Jewish too. Methinks he 'came over'.
1984 published in 1948
Died 'from natural causes' in 1949
Respect
He was a lifelong socialist too. Even got wounded fighting against Franco. Careful, Rodin!
Ha ha! I make no claims of inside knowledge about Franco myself.
1984 is not exactly pro-socialist is it? And why do you think he chose the name of the mysterious enemy to be
EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN
He was making a point that Communism was a Jewish enterprise. This is documented. 1984 speaks of today, yes? Still think my hypothesis on the nature of the communazionist NWO conspiracy is ridiculous?
Quote:
Nineteen Eighty-Four has, at times, been seen as revolutionary and politically dangerous and therefore was banned by many libraries in various countries, even besides those countries controlled by totalitarian regimes.[2]
Hmmm.... 'hate' book?
Quote:
The book tells the story of Winston Smith and his degradation by the totalitarian state in which he lives.
Was he refering to Winston Churchill here I wonder?
That's what makes what Churchil did even more despicable. He knew quite well that what Hitler spoke of (Jewish Communism) was true, but for his own sake (he was in debt and in need of attention), he turned his back on Europe. Churchill is one of the most overrated individuals in history, but at least here he made a true statement.
This article unsuprisingly chooses another quote - Dogs might also like to check out the one from Nietzsche....
In 1949, Orwell was approached by a friend, Celia Kirwan, who had just started working for a Foreign Office unit, the Information Research Department, which the Labour government had set up to publish anti-communist propaganda. He gave her a list of 37 writers and artists he considered to be unsuitable as IRD authors because of their pro-communist leanings.
Quote:
Orwell's list was also accurate: the people on it had all made pro-Soviet or pro-communist public pronouncements.
He really had it in for the communists. Good for him. Pity what they were really doing was finding out what he knew, not outing communists. 1984 was published in 1949 (written in '48'). I cannot find out the month, but he died in January 1950.
UPDATE....................................
Quote:
Please note the release date for review and the price, date and price stamped in green : June 13 1949
Just before he died (from TB we are told) he suddenly acquired a new wife (shades of Robin Cook here folks...)
Quote:
Brownell already had, when she agreed to marry the ailing Orwell, the glamour and charisma of a young Susan Sontag. Whatever the motive, it turned out to be a brilliant move for Orwell's work. The essay collections, which she assembled, are beautifully montaged and prefaced for readability, and great works of literature in their own right.
Sonia later married the homosexual Michael Pitt Rivers and had affairs with several British painters, including Lucian Freud, William Coldstream and Victor Pasmore.
Fredric John Warburg (November 27, 1898 - May 25, 1981) was an English publisher best known for his association with the British author George Orwell. During a career spanning a large part of the 20th Century and ending in 1971, Warburg published Orwell's Animal Farm (1945) as well as Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), and works by other leading figures such as Thomas Mann and Franz Kafka. Other notable publications include the controversial The Third Eye by Lobsang Rampa in 1956, Pierre Boulle's classic The Bridge over the River Kwai, Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, and William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960).
Not exactly the establishment's favourite I would have thought. I will make a point now of reading ALL those books. I suspect they may be a cohesive collection making a point... _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: The story that Orwell
handed over names in a British version of McCarthyism appeared AFTER the fall of the Soviet Union.
It served the powers that be well that he was a spy after all to denigrate his name in the mud. Ten years later they have achieved the unnachievable making Big Brother a household name and spying having gone mainstream.
I dont believe the story. The story as told in 1984 has appeared before in a Russian character called Zamyatin in the early 1920's. Its a book genre started by Kafka.
Orwell was a traditional Labour socialist who despised both fascism and bolshevism. His anti-communism was in part fuelled by him witnessing the behaviour of the communists towards their own side in Spain; he covers this in homage to catalonia. He was quite outspoken in his dislike of totalitarianism.
I'm glad you raised the Goldstein thing - I'd never thought about his name before. It is interesting - Goldstein was, of course, the scapegoat for the Party. With the crackpot anti-semitism of the Nazis still ringing in his ears, it does make sense that the scapegoat for Ingsoc might be a Jew. I'd love to know if he did give the name thought or if it was just the name of his local newsagent or something. I wonder if he ever commented on it?
Still, I'm sure you'll stick with your take on it. You say tomato, I say...er, tomato.
Mind you, so far you're doing a cracking job of forcing Orwell to fit your worldview.
What's so thrilling about this Nietzsche quote? So he's saying the Jews are a fine tough bunch, could take over but won't. Great. That's got me thinkin' he was secretly inventing fascism all right. Aside from his hyperbolic language which we all know and love, do we know where this quote is from? (I don't recognise it off hand). The context? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Hang on Rodin - you claimed Eric Blair was a Jew - ? - where'd you get that from?
I've read it several places. I thought it was common knowledge.. Wasn't he then? Disinfo can so easily get currency by repetition. Not that it changes much either way.
Quote:
Mind you, so far you're doing a cracking job of forcing Orwell to fit your worldview
Not a compliment surely?
Quote:
Each member of "The Brotherhood" is required to read the book supposedly written by Goldstein, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.
Quote:
Leon Trotsky
Christopher Hitchens has claimed that the character is based on Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein), and that Goldstein's book is likewise based on Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed.[2] Orwell wrote of Trotskyism that
"the fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i.e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is obviously false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to Communism [i.e. supporters of Stalin]; but it is doubtful whether there is much difference."[3]
Leon Trotsky
Christopher Hitchens has claimed that the character is based on Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein), and that Goldstein's book is likewise based on Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed.[2] Orwell wrote of Trotskyism that
"the fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i.e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is obviously false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to Communism [i.e. supporters of Stalin]; but it is doubtful whether there is much difference."[3]
Orwell became a supporter of the British Communist Party and as a previous poster said he fought Franco and got shot in the neck for it. When he came back the Daily Worker commisioned him to write a book on British miners called the Road to Wigan Pier. They sacked him for it as he wrote what he saw not what they wanted him to see. He described their conditions in abysmal terms and the CP at the time said no working class movement can be living in such dreadful conditions. But Orwell was his own man. His articles on Englishness during WW2 are exemplary. The state used him as they were frightened Britain would be invaded and occupied indefinetely so he created a manual for guerilla war.
It depends what your take is on the Russian Revolution. Animal Farm is based on the Russian Revolution and its corruption. 1984 was written at the the height of the Cold War. For the thousands of trotskyists who died in Stalns gulags and organised the only strikes there according to Solzhenitsyn then its funny how they are the same but they are in a struggle to the death.
Britain lost an Empire and became the poodle for America and in the process fabricated stories regarding the equivalence for stalinism and fascism. If it wasn't for the Russians we would be speaking German. Instead we are being led into an American Union known as the European Union.
Where the source for Orwell being jewish is again another absurdity like the one that makes Lenin jewish, Hitler jewish etc. Utter nonsense.
Leon Trotsky
Christopher Hitchens has claimed that the character is based on Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein), and that Goldstein's book is likewise based on Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed.[2] Orwell wrote of Trotskyism that
"the fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i.e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is obviously false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to Communism [i.e. supporters of Stalin]; but it is doubtful whether there is much difference."[3]
Being based on Trotsky makes sense insofar as he became party pariah after being expunged - makes him identical with the character of Snowball in animal farm. I suppose you think it of tremendous importance that Trotsky was Jewish. Though Lenin who fell out with him wasn't - unless you count his grandad. Of course to say someone 'is a Jew' because their grandad was from a Jewish family is the kind of nonsense that only washed in Nazi Germany. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Cheap shot! Anyhow I'm all posted out. See you all 2moro probably. Interesting day. One thing i agree with conspitaor about - sources do want triple checking out and I may have picked up some disinfo along the way. Not enough to undermine the thrust of my argument though.
I notice no-one commented on the 1920 Churchill piece on the Bolshevicks...
BTW where's this global warming? Could do with some around here. I had to light the log stove tonight (BTW the iron didn't melt... can somebody tell NIST) _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
I notice no-one commented on the 1920 Churchill piece on the Bolshevicks...
People frequently fail to comment on my, er, scintillating pearls of wisdom. I don't read anything into it.
I've had a look at this; there seems to be some suggestion it was ghost written - not unusual for a politician, with an allegation it was by some fan of Oswald Mosley - see e.g. here
Whether that's true or not I don't know. But I don't think he'd have gone along with it if he didn't agree with it.
It's difficult to find good articles as my searches are spammed by the likes of those clowns at Stormfront wetting themselves over Winston 'let's gas the arabs' Churchill going on about Jews.
Why do people always assume if a politician goes on about something, they're 'in the know'? Enoch Powell made some pretty colourful speeches, but I've yet to see any 'rivers of blood'.
There's some great other quotes from the 'greatest ever Briton' here -
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject:
rodin wrote:
BTW where's this global warming? Could do with some around here. I had to light the log stove tonight (BTW the iron didn't melt... can somebody tell NIST)
Haven't you heard?
In an overheating world, our plucky British luck indicates the gulfstream will get diverted and we get to be the next Siberia.
It just would not do for us to become Mediterranean either in climate or national character. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: By criticising
Spartacus Churchill clearly positions himself on the side of the powers that be. After all that was his philosophy.
Defending the status quo, the world empires of the time against the revolutionary turmoil that came about as a consequence of WW1 he predates Hitlers rantings on ...jews.
Nowadays we have Bush's pronouncements on Arabs and Al Quaeda 'terrorism' Every age has alleged threats and real ones.
Some take the alleged threat for real and the real becomes alleged.
I notice no-one commented on the 1920 Churchill piece on the Bolshevicks...
People frequently fail to comment on my, er, scintillating pearls of wisdom. I don't read anything into it.
I've had a look at this; there seems to be some suggestion it was ghost written - not unusual for a politician, with an allegation it was by some fan of Oswald Mosley - see e.g. here
Whether that's true or not I don't know. But I don't think he'd have gone along with it if he didn't agree with it.
It's difficult to find good articles as my searches are spammed by the likes of those clowns at Stormfront wetting themselves over Winston 'let's gas the arabs' Churchill going on about Jews.
Why do people always assume if a politician goes on about something, they're 'in the know'? Enoch Powell made some pretty colourful speeches, but I've yet to see any 'rivers of blood'.
There's some great other quotes from the 'greatest ever Briton' here -
You are right about Enoch. But he was making a prediction, not an observation. Predictions are notoriously difficult, especially about the future
As for sites like Stormfront etc. They certainly give decent 'revisionist' research (actually that word is most unwelcome - I prefer to call it 'unrestricted by common perception' research) a bad name. If they really wanted to not only expose truth but have a chance of getting it accepted, they would present their case in reasonable language. Particularly galling is the fact that they post what looks like good information, that when used as a source can easily be discredited by 'it came from that racist Stormfront site' etc.
Ian said once he thinks those sites are probably controlled opposition (or words to that effect) and I would tend tp agree.
And as for association - didn't the BNP take over the Union Flag? That very much tarnsihed it's image and meaning. Luckily for us Punk reclaimed it for Britain. Otherwise our relinquishing of national identity might have been even further down the road than it is. I wonder if some kind of 'zeitgeist' was in play - Union Flags in fashion in what was ostensibly an anti-Thatcher movement, while Thatcher herself was pushing the idea of an independent Britain versus EU integration. See the thread on what the Soviet dissident said about the EUSSR in Big Pics.
In the end Thatcher was done in by very nasty people - Rothschild agent Lamont, Hezza (blue blood I suspect) and Carlyle lackey Major.
Now we have Brown taking over from Bliar... While at Edinburgh he advised students on how to milk the system.. Now look @ the plight of students thanks to him. Indebted for life most of 'em.
I do get mad at this obvious dismantiling of liberty and freedom. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Dogs - great selection of uncensored quotes from Churchill! Nice catch.
The worst of them IMO is his reasoning that GAS is OK as a weapon of war against 'inferior' races (a theme he returns to). Awful though this is, is it any worse than our great leaders sanctioning the use of DU in Iraq? A horrible death is a horrible death. At least he was not being hypocrital, merely heartless.
He obviously has a racist bent. In that he 'grades' races. From the last quote he places Jews (not really a race - what exactly are they?) at or close to the top. 'Extraordinary' was his description.
Quote:
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920
Many of the other quotes were not from written pieces but from speeches - perhaps not meant for such wide dissemination, perhaps even misquoted, perhaps verbatim. I don't know. One that was written was
Quote:
"The choice was clearly open: crush them with vain and unstinted force, or try to give them what they want. These were the only alternatives and most people were unprepared for either. Here indeed was the Irish spectre - horrid and inexorcisable.
Writing in The World Crisis and the Aftermath, 1923-31
Sounds like he felt he was between a rock and a hard place. Irish history not one of my subjects, but I bet there will be a version we don't get to hear about much. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Leon Trotsky
Christopher Hitchens has claimed that the character is based on Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein), and that Goldstein's book is likewise based on Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed.[2] Orwell wrote of Trotskyism that
"the fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i.e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is obviously false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to Communism [i.e. supporters of Stalin]; but it is doubtful whether there is much difference."[3]
Being based on Trotsky makes sense insofar as he became party pariah after being expunged - makes him identical with the character of Snowball in animal farm. I suppose you think it of tremendous importance that Trotsky was Jewish. Though Lenin who fell out with him wasn't - unless you count his grandad. Of course to say someone 'is a Jew' because their grandad was from a Jewish family is the kind of nonsense that only washed in Nazi Germany.
If you get a copy of the Penguin Classics Animal Farm at the end of the story is a supposed preface to the book which makes for far more explosive reading, it outlines why he wrote it and the political climate of the time of writing. There is even a different Preface for the Ukrainian edition included. ISBN 0-14-118270-9 _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject:
I've long thought Snowball in Animal Farm was based on Trotsky. The curious thing to me about that book is that it is a particular species, pigs, who ultimately become the new ruling class after the revolution. Was he trying to imply that a particular species, race or ethnic group were those who had taken over the Russian Revolution - a racist idea if he was, I think.
Then in 1984 we have the mythical arch-enemy whom everyone is expected to hate: Emmanuel Goldstein, also based IMHO on the exiled Trotsky whom Stalin had assassinated in Mexico. But the example of the character Goldstein is strangely prophetic about the public enemy we're all supposed to hate today: Osama bin Laden. I think he's dead and being kept artificially alive by media fakery, though others are doubtful.
I also think that Orwell was an ordinary democratic socialist whose writings were intended as warnings against authoritarian (Stalinist) tendencies which he encountered in the Labour Party.
I notice no-one commented on the 1920 Churchill piece on the Bolshevicks...
People frequently fail to comment on my, er, scintillating pearls of wisdom. I don't read anything into it.
I've had a look at this; there seems to be some suggestion it was ghost written - not unusual for a politician, with an allegation it was by some fan of Oswald Mosley - see e.g. here
Whether that's true or not I don't know. But I don't think he'd have gone along with it if he didn't agree with it.
It's difficult to find good articles as my searches are spammed by the likes of those clowns at Stormfront wetting themselves over Winston 'let's gas the arabs' Churchill going on about Jews.
Why do people always assume if a politician goes on about something, they're 'in the know'? Enoch Powell made some pretty colourful speeches, but I've yet to see any 'rivers of blood'.
There's some great other quotes from the 'greatest ever Briton' here -
You are right about Enoch. But he was making a prediction, not an observation. Predictions are notoriously difficult, especially about the future
As for sites like Stormfront etc. They certainly give decent 'revisionist' research (actually that word is most unwelcome - I prefer to call it 'unrestricted by common perception' research) a bad name. If they really wanted to not only expose truth but have a chance of getting it accepted, they would present their case in reasonable language. Particularly galling is the fact that they post what looks like good information, that when used as a source can easily be discredited by 'it came from that racist Stormfront site' etc.
Ian said once he thinks those sites are probably controlled opposition (or words to that effect) and I would tend tp agree.
And as for association - didn't the BNP take over the Union Flag? That very much tarnsihed it's image and meaning. Luckily for us Punk reclaimed it for Britain. Otherwise our relinquishing of national identity might have been even further down the road than it is. I wonder if some kind of 'zeitgeist' was in play - Union Flags in fashion in what was ostensibly an anti-Thatcher movement, while Thatcher herself was pushing the idea of an independent Britain versus EU integration. See the thread on what the Soviet dissident said about the EUSSR in Big Pics.
In the end Thatcher was done in by very nasty people - Rothschild agent Lamont, Hezza (blue blood I suspect) and Carlyle lackey Major.
Now we have Brown taking over from Bliar... While at Edinburgh he advised students on how to milk the system.. Now look @ the plight of students thanks to him. Indebted for life most of 'em.
I do get mad at this obvious dismantiling of liberty and freedom.
You are right about the Powell thing. I suppose a more accurate and obvious comparison would be contemporary narratives about 'international terror networks'.
I do think that HD is not factually undermined by its links to modern neo-nazis, but as I have argued before, I do get perplexed at the wilfull denial these links exist. That HD is most popular in neo-nazi circles is easily demonstrable. If the Holocaust is useful for Zionists, a 'holohoax' is no less useful for neo-nazis. If the conservatives had killed 6 million Jews fifty years ago, I wouldn't fancy Dave Cameron's chances at the next election. Agendas run in all directions and don't necessarily come from the PTB. People sometimes act as if revisionism is universally devoid of political agendas. It isn't. It's just worth being aware of them.
David Cole gives a hint of the mindset in the more respctable circles he moved in from his experience of 'the scene' (I quite like David Cole from his interviews. I think he's actually made some genuinely good points and is/was my favourite revisionist).
Quote:
Q: Have you encountered any anti-semitism from the revisionists that
you have met around the world?
COLE: Have I encountered anti-Semitism from revisionists? That’s a
tricky one, because most of them are always on their best behavior when
I’m around. The ones, and there are many, who believe in wacky Jewish
conspiracy theories or the supremacy of the “white race” rarely let me in
on the joke because they know that I won’t share those views. I always
volunteer my views on such subjects as religion, race-mixing, conspiracy
theories, etc., just so there should be no confusion about where I stand
on those things. Plus my best friend, who is black, is REALLY imposing -
this is a BIG guy who, by his sheer size, doesn’t exactly encourage candor
>from white supremacists who might be in the same room. Anytime he’s
around, my revisionist pals are either silent or trying to say something
complimentary about black people (like “I really love that Marcus Garvey”
or “you people are such great Christians”). One time I was having dinner
with Mark Weber and his girlfriend. As we were coming out of the
restaurant, a trendy, expensive West L.A. eatery, Weber was talking
animatedly about some very “conservative” subjects. And who should come
walking up behind us, listening in, but the rapper Ice T, who, as many of
you would know, is as far left as Mark is far right. I managed to change
the subject before the situation could become dangerous. Still and all,
nowadays I wonder if I did the right thing. It’s not that I wish Mark any
harm, it’s just that, well, the image of a revisionist historian getting
clobbered by a famous rapper...well, as Beavis and/or Butt-head might say,
“that would be cool.”
This is all anecdotal of course (I do like the bit about Ice T though), but I thought you in particular might like this snippet:
Quote:
But I CAN say that Mark Weber’s greatest flaw is that he seems to
concern himself more with the “movement” than with the integrity of his
own work. He might have had a real shot at legitimacy as a historian, but
he’s blown it by sacrificing his integrity for “movement” concerns. For
example, IHR sells the “Protocols of Zion.” Weber freely acknowledges
(privately) that this book is a ridiculous fraud. But he also admits that
it’s one of the consistently best selling books they have. Weber would
like to drop it, but he’s afraid of losing support.
Anyway, perhaps I'm a bit tight being rude about Stormfront. I find their 'Nazi lifestyle' threads fascinating. E.g.
Quote:
I'm known amongst my friends for having a rather sharp wit and even sharper tongue, particularily when it comes to dealing with the unwanted advances of non-Whites.
Over the past couple of years my town has seen an influx of non-Whites, which has inevitably made it more difficult to avoid them when out socializing with friends. As such, I developed a tactic to keep them away from myself and my friends while we're trying to have fun. So here they are, my favorite ways to shoot down persistant admirers of less-than-desirable breeding.
(followed by a string of charming racist put-downs)
- the problems of forming relationships with only the right genes are apparently quite a challenge - let alone pinning down the right style for the discerning racist:
Quote:
Which haircut would you go with: Hitler Jugend or Skinhead?
I urge all to drop by this thread and leave their own opinions regarding this subject. Personally, I am quite fond of the Hitler Jugend haircut. In addition, ladies out there could express their personal opinion on which one is more appealing to them in males. As to blokes, I certainly would like to know which one of the two would you opt.
Since these haircuts are somehow common between both White Nationalism and National Socialism followers, examples from them could be send in order to maintain this thread alive as well as your personal hairdo pics.
Yeah - you stick with looking like Hitler, mate!
They're a hilarious bunch really!
Though I do think they are at least in part a controlled opposition too.
As for flags, I can recall no more charming a sight than a bunch of young children burning those little Union Jacks they sell to tourists at an anarchist do in the early nineties. Great to see kids being brought up proper. As for the other stuff; I dunno. Except the most iconic symbol of punk is for me the Crass symbol
If you get a copy of the Penguin Classics Animal Farm at the end of the story is a supposed preface to the book which makes for far more explosive reading, it outlines why he wrote it and the political climate of the time of writing. There is even a different Preface for the Ukrainian edition included. ISBN 0-14-118270-9
What does it say? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
I think if we start from the premise that ALL opposition is controlled (including the sort that serves as the excuse for wars) we won't have much revising to do...
Got a good source for Jacob Rothschild funding Napoleon? I can't use 'Iamthewitness' on Wikipedia... _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
I think if we start from the premise that ALL opposition is controlled (including the sort that serves as the excuse for wars) we won't have much revising to do...
Got a good source for Jacob Rothschild funding Napoleon? I can't use 'Iamthewitness' on Wikipedia...
If all opposition is controlled what about...you? I certainly shan't trust any of that Dissential stuff! Bleedin' agents!
I don't know anything about Rothchild funding Napolean. I'd never even heard it before you said so. Have you read it anywhere else? Perhaps you should contact Iamthewitness and enquire as to their source? If it is valid, you could simply cut out the middle man...? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
