Question

[Bud Struggle]

Any chance I could get a brief primer about the difference between these insignia.

:blackA: and :reda:

:star2: and :star:

Thanks.

[edit] And on that note: it seems I could post a new thread if i kept the title to one word.

[IcarusAngel]

The red one is preferred for communist anarchy, the black one is for syndicalism or traditional anarchy.

[Robert]

Tommy my boy, I'm getting an uneasy feeling. Very faint, but it's there. You aren't ...
um ... that is ... well, you know, getting restless or anything, are you?

[Cult of Reason]

As far as I am aware, there is essentially no difference between the (A)s,apart from the cosmetic. I suppose, though, that the individualists might not use the red one.

The Red/Black star is exclusively Anarchist, while the Red star is usually Leninist, though if it is on black, like with the EZLN, it is usually non-Leninist and sometimes Anarchist.

[Forward Union]

Any chance I could get a brief primer about the difference between these insignia.

:blackA: and :reda:



One is red the other is black. No significance. The Symbol comes from the Spanish Civil war in 1936, in which Anarchist Soldiers often scribled it on the back of their helmets, on walls and tanks. It's meant to embody The first to letters of Kropotkins "Anarchism is Order"


:star2: and :star:

Red star is a traditional socialist symbol. Though I couldn't tell you where it comes from. Obviously it's red because of the Red Flag, which is Red because it was used by British Sailors which mutinieed in the 1600s. The Jolly Roger is a bastardisation of La Jolie Rouge (The Happy Red)

The Red and Black star is the star of the Anarchists. Which comes from a merger of the Red and Black flags. Both used by workers in the 1800s (pre-marx)

Red and black flag on the Trams in Anarchist Spain

http://raforum.info/IMG/jpg/Collectivised-CNT-tram.jpg
Spain just over a month ago;
http://theplatform.nuevaradio.org/b2-img/cnt-(2).jpg


What I will say is that actually, Cult of reason is wrong. The red and black is not exclusively Anarchist. In Europe, Africa and Asia, perhaps that's the case though I can only say Europe for sure. Elsewhere, particularly Latin America the Red and Black flag is used in a vast array of different ways. In Mexico it's an informal declaration of strike, and workers put them up regardless of their politics. Also, the Stalinist EPR in Mexico uses the red and black flag/star. But this was introduced to them by the Anarcho-syndicalists in Mexico.

Mexican Strike;

http://www.fte-energia.org/E89/1200.jpg

[Bud Struggle]

Thanks everyone for your replies.


Tommy my boy, I'm getting an uneasy feeling. Very faint, but it's there. You aren't ...
um ... that is ... well, you know, getting restless or anything, are you?

Robert. Very interesting question. Muchly thinking about it myself these days. I'm not going anywhere or "changing" any beliefs, but I do find that I really "like" these Communists. The younger ones seem to be honestly disenfranchised--over educated and under employed. Their "grimness" (for want of a better word,) isn't just teenage angst--it seems to be real pain. And the older guys, Luis and Gene and Wat and others are really smart well thought out sons of guns--I really APPRECIATE their thoughts on things.

Hey, I don't agree with them, but they are really smart and more importantly--they mean well. These Commie bastards WANT a better world--and in a large part because they find this one so dismal. I'm not sure I can see why it's so nasty for them they have opportunities they don't see, or maybe not--maybe I'm wrong.

But to me they seemed to have missed the boat on what this world has to offer and they put all their hopes in a dream of a Communist future (it's SCIENCE!) that's their pie int he sky. Listen to them and you hear how something in the way we do things has left them high and dry, without hope, except for that Marxist thing.

I see RevLeft as the home of the 21st Century Lost Boys, clinging to Stalin, and Honniker and Castro and God knows who else to lead them into a Promised Land. We should offer them more than that.

But, don't feel uneasy about me joining them, but maybe we should all feel a bit uneasy about what we did to disenfranchise these (for the most part) pretty kind hearted people. Did they just lose their way, or did we do something to obscure their path?

[Robert]

Gosh, Tommy, great points. "They" are very interesting, I agree. Ulster Socialist could come to the states and become a billionaire as a standup comic. I don't think you were here when he was really on a roll a few months ago. He has some killer stuff.

But there's way too much diversity among them to generalize.

As for you, I'm counting on you keeping that factory humming. I may need a job sweeping up someday. So don't get ... restless.

[Bud Struggle]

Gosh, Tommy, great points. "They" are very interesting, I agree. Ulster Socialist could come to the states and become a billionaire as a standup comic. I don't think you were here when he was really on a roll a few months ago. He has some killer stuff.

But there's way too much diversity among them to generalize.

As for you, I'm counting on you keeping that factory humming. I may need a job sweeping up someday. So don't get ... restless.

And personally I think Jazzratt has the makings of a billionare. I never saw anyone so on target for understanding the real world.

Anyway--unlike North Korea, Cuba or Hugo Chavez--I, TomK, have SOVIETS! :hammersickle:

Lets see if this Commie stuff really works! :)

Started on May 1--I'll report on them when the numbers come in.

[Dros]

And personally I think Jazzratt has the makings of a billionare. I never saw anyone so on target for understanding the real world.

Anyway--unlike North Korea, Cuba or Hugo Chavez--I, TomK, have SOVIETS! :hammersickle:

Lets see if this Commie stuff really works! :)

Started on May 1--I'll report on them when the numbers come in.

sorry what?!

[Baconator]

:blackA: is also used by market anarchists (AnCaps) and our close cousins agorists.
The circle around the A symbolizes that order is possible within Anarchy contrary to the Hobbsian jungle myth.

On the free market side of anarchism certain symbols are used which I think are pretty ridiculous myself. A purely rational anarchist does not believe in any 'flag' to represent the belief be it red-black (socialist anarchism) or gold-black ( free market anarchism). Furthermore, certain market anarchists use the $ sign in the flag which is even more ridiculous. I understand the intent is to use a symbol to represent the market but the $ literally represents the U.S.(and other dollar nations) dollar which is nothing more than forced monopolization and paper we're supposed to consider 'money.' I just see some irony in that but I was always a critic about most things. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

sorry what?!

May 1st I started "workers councils" each department meets discusses problems, solves problems. No supervisors or bosses invited. Each department then elects a representative to a "leadership" council--they smooth out the differences. No management allowed.

The workers run the show. If they improve business (using Jan, Feb, March as the average,) thet get 50% of the profit in wage improvement--25% goes to better working conditions (parties) and 25% goes to a workers discretionary fund.

It's not Marx-- but it's a start.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

May 1st I started "workers councils" each department meets discusses problems, solves problems. No supervisors or bosses invited. Each department then elects a representative to a "leadership" council--they smooth out the differences. No management allowed.

The workers run the show. If they improve business (using Jan, Feb, March as the average,) thet get 50% of the profit in wage improvement--25% goes to better working conditions (parties) and 25% goes to a workers discretionary fund.

It's not Marx-- but it's a start.
If the economy doesn't collapse and the workers don't just stop working for no reason, will you admit you were wrong about communism?

[Dros]

May 1st I started "workers councils" each department meets discusses problems, solves problems. No supervisors or bosses invited. Each department then elects a representative to a "leadership" council--they smooth out the differences. No management allowed.

The workers run the show. If they improve business (using Jan, Feb, March as the average,) thet get 50% of the profit in wage improvement--25% goes to better working conditions (parties) and 25% goes to a workers discretionary fund.

It's not Marx-- but it's a start.

Wow. I like you TomK! Well... for a capitalist parasite that is.;):):laugh:

[Dean]

Wow. I like you TomK! Well... for a capitalist parasite that is.;):):laugh:

Shit, I told you people he wasn't that bad of a guy. But many wouldn't listen; look at his profile for gods sake, riddled with insults.

[Dros]

Shit, I told you people he wasn't that bad of a guy. But many wouldn't listen; look at his profile for gods sake, riddled with insults.

I always thought he was a nice guy! Now that's just confirmed.

[Bud Struggle]

You think I came here just to tell you guys what dufuses you are? I'll argue a bit--what the hell? :D I'm really here to learn and listen.

My workforce is composed of reasonably well educated people (through public education) that should be able to think through problems. They should be able to do so an then be rewarded for their effort.

I don't kow if this is Communism--or working Capitalism to it's fullest potential.

Personally, I think we have to stop the fighting and rethink Communism and Capitalism to make it work. I mean--really work, for you and for me.

I know BANNED! :D

[Sentinel]

May 1st I started "workers councils" each department meets discusses problems, solves problems. No supervisors or bosses invited. Each department then elects a representative to a "leadership" council--they smooth out the differences. No management allowed.

The workers run the show. If they improve business (using Jan, Feb, March as the average,) thet get 50% of the profit in wage improvement--25% goes to better working conditions (parties) and 25% goes to a workers discretionary fund.

It's not Marx-- but it's a start.You're claiming that you implemented this at your factory? :ohmy:

That would make you the next Robert Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen).. But some proof wouldn't hurt, Tom. ;)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I see RevLeft as the home of the 21st Century Lost Boys, clinging to Stalin, and Honniker and Castro and God knows who else to lead them into a Promised Land.

This (American) commie bastard actually said something eerily alike to the quoted paragraph:

“I am not a labor leader. I don't want you to follow me or anyone else. If you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of the capitalist wilderness you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into this promised land if I could, because if I could lead you in, someone else could lead you out.” - Eugene Debs

Actually, a lot of what Debs wrote can be used as a legitimate response in this thread.


Hey, I don't agree with them, but they are really smart and more importantly--they mean well. These Commie bastards WANT a better world--and in a large part because they find this one so dismal. I'm not sure I can see why it's so nasty for them they have opportunities they don't see, or maybe not--maybe I'm wrong.

But to me they seemed to have missed the boat on what this world has to offer and they put all their hopes in a dream of a Communist future

“Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life. We were taught under the old ethic that man's business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands.”

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

TomK, You had better hope that the worker's don't demand the same thing the Russian workers did in 1917: All power to the Soviets! :D

[Awful Reality]

And on that note: it seems I could post a new thread if i kept the title to one word.

Post the title as "-," and then immediately go back and edit the title to what you want it to be. Works.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hopefully it'll get resolved. We wouldn't want OIers leaving the forum (well some of us might :D). http://www.revleft.com/vb/oiers-having-problems-t79759/index.html?p=1156185#post1156185

[apathy maybe]

It's meant to embody The first to letters of Kropotkins "Anarchism is Order"
Err, epic fail. Proudhon wrote What is Property, to which he answered, "Property is theft" (well, he wrote more then that, but when you use the definition of property that he used, then yes it is "theft"). You can find more about that phrase at the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft

The phrase "Anarchy is order" comes from another book, Confessions of a Revolutionary by the same author. A sample quote:

All men are equal and free: society by nature, and destination, is therefore autonomous and ungovernable. If the sphere of activity of each citizen is determined by the natural division of work and by the choice he makes of a profession, if the social functions are combined in such a way as to produce a harmonious effect, order results from the free activity of all men; there is no government. Whoever puts a hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant; I declare him my enemy.

I am unable to find the book online, however, a fuller version of the phrase is, "Anarchy is order, government is chaos". That is, government is the source of problems in society, the chaos and violence. The solution? Eliminate laws, and you eliminate crime, eliminate need, and you get rid of so many problems.


Oh, and why did I see the need to have "Property is theft"? Because I thought the two phrases came from the same book. I was obviously wrong. I left it in there though because it is educational.

[Baconator]

Err, epic fail. Proudhon wrote What is Property, to which he answered, "Property is theft" (well, he wrote more then that, but when you use the definition of property that he used, then yes it is "theft"). You can find more about that phrase at the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft

The phrase "Anarchy is order" comes from another book, Confessions of a Revolutionary by the same author. A sample quote:


I am unable to find the book online, however, a fuller version of the phrase is, "Anarchy is order, government is chaos". That is, government is the source of problems in society, the chaos and violence. The solution? Eliminate laws, and you eliminate crime, eliminate need, and you get rid of so many problems.


Oh, and why did I see the need to have "Property is theft"? Because I thought the two phrases came from the same book. I was obviously wrong. I left it in there though because it is educational.


Do you see the logical contradiction in the proposition 'Property is Theft?'

[apathy maybe]

Err, did you both reading more then just those three words?

He wrote more then that, but when you use the definition of property that he used, then yes it is "theft".

My suggestion, go and read the book and then come back and talk about logical contradictions, if you can find any.

[Baconator]

Err, did you both reading more then just those three words?

He wrote more then that, but when you use the definition of property that he used, then yes it is "theft".

My suggestion, go and read the book and then come back and talk about logical contradictions, if you can find any.

Ok, but I just examined the proposition of 'property is theft.' You would agree that the proposition itself is a logical contradiction? I know Proudhon meant more than that ( in fact, I've pointed that out several times) but I'm specifically asking if you see a logical contradiction in the 'property is theft' proposition. Thats all.

[apathy maybe]

No I don't see a logical contradiction. I'm observing that Proudhon had attached certain meanings to the words, and that using those meanings there is no contradiction.

[Baconator]

No I don't see a logical contradiction. I'm observing that Proudhon had attached certain meanings to the words, and that using those meanings there is no contradiction.

So can you sum up what you interpret as Proudhon's definition of property?

[Kropotesta]

It's been bugging me for awhile but is there actually a difference on whether the black is at the top or the bottom of the anarchist red and black flag? I've heard that the black at the top is anarchist-communism and at the bottom is anarcho-syndicalism? What?

[apathy maybe]

So can you sum up what you interpret as Proudhon's definition of property?

No, I suggest reading the book. It can be found in many places online, normally the English translation used is the one by Benjamin R. Tucker.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ProProp.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/360
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm

For your convenience though, (all quotes from the Virginia Uni version):

Property is robbery! . . . What a revolution in human ideas! Proprietor and robber have been at all times expressions as contradictory as the beings whom they designate are hostile; all languages have perpetuated this opposition. On what authority, then, do you venture to attack universal consent, and give the lie to the human race? Who are you, that you should question the judgment of the nations and the ages?

These two definitions do not differ from that of the Roman law: all give the proprietor an absolute right over a thing; and as for the restriction imposed by the code, -- provided we do not overstep the limits prescribed by the laws and regulations, -- its object is not to limit property, but to prevent the domain of one proprietor from interfering with that of another. That is a confirmation of the principle, not a limitation of it.

There are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, naked property. 2. Possession. "Possession," says Duranton, "is a matter of fact, not of right." Toullier: "Property is a right, a legal power; possession is a fact." The tenant, the farmer, the commandité, the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors. If I may venture the comparison: a lover is a possessor, a husband is a proprietor.

This double definition of property -- domain and possession -- is of the highest importance; and it must be clearly understood, in order to comprehend what is to follow.

Proudhon, in that quote, is indeed using the "standard" definition of property. (He quotes three such definitions, from the Romans, from the Code Napoléon and from "the Declaration of Rights, published as a preface to the Constitution of '93" (by which he means the French one).)

But you'll have to read the text to work out why he says that there isn't a contradiction.

[Baconator]

No, I suggest reading the book. It can be found in many places online, normally the English translation used is the one by Benjamin R. Tucker.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ProProp.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/360
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm

For your convenience though, (all quotes from the Virginia Uni version):



Proudhon, in that quote, is indeed using the "standard" definition of property. (He quotes three such definitions, from the Romans, from the Code Napoléon and from "the Declaration of Rights, published as a preface to the Constitution of '93" (by which he means the French one).)

But you'll have to read the text to work out why he says that there isn't a contradiction.


Before I dissect this I would like to establish agreed upon axioms so nobody gets confused. I haven't read the book but I think I got the gist of the argument.

Proudhon attempts to invalidate the 'legal' definition of property which he recognizes as 'proprietorship.' It appears that Proudhon believes that 'property' was created by governments and given as 'titles' to individuals from governments in which the government would enforce the individual's 'right' to that 'property.' Therefore, property has no meaning without the state to enforce the 'legality' of it.

Proudhon's 'other' definition of 'property' is possession which he says as a kind of 'matter of fact' about life. It appears that in order to be legitimate 'possessor' you must yourself maintain some labor status over the possession in order to make a valid claim. 'Property rights' would not be valid since you cannot make claims about exclusivity or non-exclusivity (to others) over the possession.

Those that rent out the property for use or inherit the land are considered 'proprietors' since they are setting terms of exclusivity/non exclusivity on others and do not actually 'possess' the land.

Proudhon attempted to prove that 'proprietorship' as given 'legal meaning' by the state is invalid and , in essence , robbery.

Is this what you accept as the argument as well? I'll do my analysis if we establish this as a mutually understood axiom of Proudhon's argument unless you have a different view?

Thanks.

[Ultra-Violence]

UV Hugs TomK:blushing: and a kiss too;) ur a cool dude man

fuck it hugs and kisses for everyone!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Do you see the logical contradiction in the proposition 'Property is Theft?'

If you take the phrase out of context, I'm sure such a conclusion can be met.

[Bud Struggle]

This (American) commie bastard actually said something eerily alike to the quoted paragraph:

“I am not a labor leader. I don't want you to follow me or anyone else. If you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of the capitalist wilderness you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into this promised land if I could, because if I could lead you in, someone else could lead you out.” - Eugene Debs

Actually, a lot of what Debs wrote can be used as a legitimate response in this thread.

Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life. We were taught under the old ethic that man's business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands.”



Right Gene. That's what the OI should be about--what it reality SHOULD BE. You have the rest of RevLeft discussing the past (and the pie in the sky future.) Really, OI shouldn't be about "Communism" or "Capitalism" or any other "Ism". We should be about what best for the most people to live happy healthy lives with freedom. Freedom of religion and speech and freedom from want and freedom from terror. The answer MAY be Communism or it may be some sort of Capitalism. I really don't know--but once we glue ourselves to Trotsky or Bush or Marx or Reagan we loose perspective on the best for all and focus on ideology and dogma. I really don't give a shit about what Marx said or what Reagan said--I care about what best for my kids. I want them to have the best world we can build. I want same for your kids too.

In a lot of ways RevLeft is all about the past, rehashing long dead ideas ad nausium. I'm up for reinventing the future--and OI is the best tool we have. ( At least around here! :))

[Kropotesta]

UV Hugs TomK:blushing: and a kiss too;) ur a cool dude man

fuck it hugs and kisses for everyone!
Yeah, what TomK has done is better than nothing but the fact remains that he still makes money off surplus value and does the same things we object to people owning the means of production.
The next step I'd propose is for TomK to develop the factory into a co-operative. I'm sure he hash more than enough money to live out the rest of his life on with the Bentley and other consumerist items he has possesion of.

[Kropotesta]

It's been bugging me for awhile but is there actually a difference on whether the black is at the top or the bottom of the anarchist red and black flag? I've heard that the black at the top is anarchist-communism and at the bottom is anarcho-syndicalism? What?
anyone?

[freakazoid]

. Muchly thinking about it myself these days. I'm not going anywhere or "changing" any beliefs, but I do find that I really "like" these Communists.

Excelent... Soon you will join us, mwahahahahahahs


May 1st I started "workers councils" each department meets discusses problems, solves problems. No supervisors or bosses invited. Each department then elects a representative to a "leadership" council--they smooth out the differences. No management allowed.

The workers run the show. If they improve business (using Jan, Feb, March as the average,) thet get 50% of the profit in wage improvement--25% goes to better working conditions (parties) and 25% goes to a workers discretionary fund.

It's not Marx-- but it's a start.

lol. You know whats funny, a capitalist is getting more done for our cause than a lot of us have. :D And not just any kind of capitalist, but a factory owner, :laugh: Here's to TomK.

What kind of factory do you own?


I want same for your kids too.

ROFL, at first I thought you had said I want SOME of your kids. lol


Yeah, what TomK has done is better than nothing but the fact remains that he still makes money off surplus value and does the same things we object to people owning the means of production.
The next step I'd propose is for TomK to develop the factory into a co-operative. I'm sure he hash more than enough money to live out the rest of his life on with the Bentley and other consumerist items he has possesion of.

Boooo, how dare you insult TomK, :P

[Colonello Buendia]

TomK, I have so much respect for you, when the revolution comes I'll stop them from killing you

[Ultra-Violence]

Yeah, what TomK has done is better than nothing but the fact remains that he still makes money off surplus value and does the same things we object to people owning the means of production.
The next step I'd propose is for TomK to develop the factory into a co-operative. I'm sure he hash more than enough money to live out the rest of his life on with the Bentley and other consumerist items he has possesion of.
^^^^^^
Doenst mean i should hate him
Love conquers all and yeah TomK WILL BE SPARED DAMIT!:laugh:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

TomK will be a very productive member to our gulags, that is for sure. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

You guys are the sweetest people.:wub::hammersickle:

AND. It looks like from early numbers that overall production was up 6 1/2%. Which is good--but I think it'll get even better--it takes a while for people to get used to such things. The added bonus is that it frees up managers to do proper planning and forecasting rather than spending their days solving petty problems like "where's the forklift?" Or, "the truck has a flat tire." Actually, this means a lot more work for the managers if they do their jobs properly. I want them to do a lot less "telling people wat to do," and a lot more scheduling and organizing and planning. I have to think this out out to utilize them better.

Hopefully this will make work not just more profitable--but also more rewarding. As far as I can tell everybody's taken to the idea except the older Spaninh ladies in the labeling department--they rather not be bothered thinking about business, they like to do their job and gossip--which is fine, but I may do some sort of party to up the anty for them to participate more. These lovely women can party any college sophmore under the table--they get into it, so if they see a real result from thinking a bit they may join in more.

Anyway, it's only the beginning there are a lot of bugs to iron out--but I am very pleased with the result so far. I think it will take about at least a quarter six months to get things to the point where they are somewhat normalized. I must say for me as a private company--this is all pretty easy, I think in a public company where managers come and go, and are answerable to everyone and no one--this kind of thind may be more difficult to achieve.

I kind of wonder why it's not done more.

[Kropotesta]

You guys are the sweetest people.:wub::hammersickle:
How's the worker meetings going?

[Bud Struggle]

How's the worker meetings going?

I added that to the post above on an edit. That is: the results of the meetings. I don't know how the actual meeting transpire because I'm keeping myself and my managers totally out of the process of what the workers meet on. They come out of the meeting and tell us what they decide. Almost everything they've done so far is workable--once in a while for some technical reason something can't be done the way they want it--and hopefully the managers explain the resons why--and the workers could either accept the explaination of find a way around the situation.

And do you know what's best about all of this? NOBODY BOTHERS ME! :laugh:

[Kropotesta]

It's been bugging me for awhile but is there actually a difference on whether the black is at the top or the bottom of the anarchist red and black flag? I've heard that the black at the top is anarchist-communism and at the bottom is anarcho-syndicalism? What?
Does anyone know?

[Baconator]

I added that to the post above on an edit. That is: the results of the meetings. I don't know how the actual meeting transpire because I'm keeping myself and my managers totally out of the process of what the workers meet on. They come out of the meeting and tell us what they decide. Almost everything they've done so far is workable--once in a while for some technical reason something can't be done the way they want it--and hopefully the managers explain the resons why--and the workers could either accept the explaination of find a way around the situation.

And do you know what's best about all of this? NOBODY BOTHERS ME! :laugh:


Better than a coercive Union isn't it? :laugh: