Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

Depoliticisation: Bribes & Threats V Morals & Ethics

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Damcanol - Theoretical
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2637

PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:06 am    Post subject: Depoliticisation: Bribes & Threats V Morals & Ethics Reply with quote

As you can tell from the title of this thread - " Depoliticisation : Bribes & Threats V Morals & Ethics " - I hold a certain view of the meaning of the term " Depoliticisation " which for me is the disappearance from any public discourse concerning the governing of the state of any political criticism i.e. what is taken to be a shared political and agreed political consensus is in fact the entire absence of any political debate. This convention exists here in Wales because Democrats in the United Kingdom are effectively forbidden from debating any reform to the political system because it is constitutionally an Aristocracy which has merely been decorated to look like a Democracy by the addition of some voting. The careful omission of any of the conventional political methods and the orthopractic state institutions which characterise what is accepted elsewhere to be the modern Democratic - Republican norms is no accident in The United Kingdom - it is a political system designed for a purpose, and that purpose whilst normally not obvious comes sharply into focus in times when the power and wealth of those whom it is designed to serve are in their eyes threatened - on which occasions we can see that those who threaten their power are suppressed and indeed those upon whose behalf they protest are then oppressed lest they threaten their possession of wealth in order to extract even more money from them to restore their fortunes : the nature of the United Kingdom as a political system is in essence still as it was described in the Doomsday Book, where the native inhabitants of the invaded island of Britain were merely listed as property to be exploited alongside lakes and land, ploughs and oxen, mills and saws, sheep and wives, pigs and children ... as in 1066, when there was no possibility of any political discussion, the replacement of political discussion with a non-political system based upon bribes and threats declares where the power is located within Britain's non-political system - outside of its declared ' political ' system, because nobody has been able to secure any of the obviously needed and obviously popular reforms of the political system called the United Kingdom despite trying for literally centuries : the daunting historical lesson to be taken from not just the Irish and the Americans - but also so many of The People of The World who fell into the hands of The United Kingdom - is that there is no political discussion that can take place that can negotiate the improvement of that relationship. Any attempt to enter into a political relationship with a non-political system merely lends the latter credibility and helps to disguise it, as happened in 19c Britain when the widening of the franchise promised to offer a peaceful path to resolving Ireland's problems which proved to be deceitful : the Democrats who conduct such political systems on behalf of their sponsoring proprietors will never reform them because of their own vested interests as professional politicians. Good decision making requires diverse ideological criticism - but all Ultraisms ban criticisms : Democracy demands Depoliticisation !

Anyhow ... other people hold views that are deemed to be more conventional, in that they continue to not only believe in Democracy but to believe that the remedy for the faults in Democracies is to allow even more Democrats to have room at even more troughs to feed on The People in Wales and The World ... finding this prompted me to start this trough ...

http://www.psa.ac.uk/psa-communities/specialist-groups/anti-politics-and-depoliticisation

The Anti-politics and Depoliticisation Specialist Group (APDSG) is a new PSA Specialist Group established in 2013 and dedicated to providing a forum for researchers examining those processes throughout society that seem to have marginalised normative political debates and fostered an air of disengagement, disaffection and disinterest in politics. Although these topics have been the subject of much research and academic debate for some time, scholars interested in these ‘anti-political’ phenomena have tended to talk past each other rather to each other. The purpose of this group is hence to foster interaction, collaboration and debate amongst researchers focusing on these disparate but potentially interconnected areas of research.

Latest News and Forthcoming Events:

Led by Dr. Uri Gordon and PSA Anarchist Studies Network which has been recently granted the PSA Pushing the Boundaries award, APDSG will take part in a one-day symposium being organised in the eve of the upcoming UK elections in the University of Nottingham. The symposium's main theme is "Re-engagement or Rebellion". The highlight of the event will be a public debate between Michael Sani, director of voting-registration NGO “Bite the Ballot”, and Jon Bigger, Class War parliamentary candidate for Croydon South and a PhD candidate at PHIR.


http://www.psa.ac.uk/psa-communities/specialist-groups/anti-politics-and-depoliticisation/blog/anti-politics-explained

Is anti-politics explained by depoliticisation ? - By Ross Beveridge on 24 March 2015

Nick Clarke, Gerry Stoker, Will Jennings and Jonathan Moss from the University of Southampton address the inter-relationships between anti-politics and depolticisation in their ESRC project 'Popular Understandings of Politics in Britain, 1937-2014'.

Sometimes, ‘depoliticisation’ and ‘anti-politics’ are used to mean roughly the same thing. For Peter Burnham, depoliticisation is a form of statecraft whereby the political character of decision-making is placed at one remove from elected government. For Colin Hay, depoliticisation involves moving an issue from the governmental sphere to the public sphere (depoliticisation 1), or from the public sphere to the private sphere (depoliticisation 2), or from the private sphere to the realm of necessity (depoliticisation 3). There is overlap between these definitions and Andreas Schedler’s description of anti-politics. Here, anti-politics is a governing strategy that seeks to abolish politics by replacing collective problems with self-regulating orders (e.g. the market), or plurality with uniformity (e.g. ‘the people’ of populism), or contingency with necessity (e.g. ‘there is no alternative’ or TINA). It is also a governing strategy that seeks to colonise politics and to replace the communicative rationality of politics with another rationality (e.g. money and the market, or science and technology).

So depoliticisation and anti-politics can both be forms of statecraft. But sometimes, ‘depoliticisation’ and ‘anti-politics’ are used to mean different but related things. Depoliticisation is the cause. Anti-politics is the effect. Here, as for Clare Saunders, anti-politics describes a generalised disaffection in contemporary democracies, expressed in low levels of satisfaction with governments, low levels of trust in politicians, and disengagement from political institutions like parties and elections. We are using the terms in this latter way for our current project: Popular Understandings of Politics in Britain, 1937-2014 (see http://blog.soton.ac.uk/antipolitics/). We seek to explain anti-politics in contemporary Britain, defined as negativity towards formal politics and expressed in such things as declining trust in politicians, declining party membership, and declining voter turnout. We consider a range of potential explanations including depoliticisation. The logic of this potential explanation works as follows. The New Right Project of the last few decades – neoliberalism – has attacked the public domain in the name of free markets and market discipline. Public choice theorists have positioned politicians and civil servants as self-interested rent-seekers. Deregulation, privatisation, and audit have removed power and responsibility from public actors. Why should people engage with formal politics when those involved are not to be trusted and no longer powerful?


[ I COPIED THE ABOVE WHOLE - WHAT ELSE WAS OF INTEREST - TO COAX YOU TO READ THE WHOLE THING ? ... IT IS ABOUT £80 TO JOIN ... ]

... we have a research design that allows citizens to speak in their own terms about how they define politics, how they relate to politics, and what they value in politics. To these ends, the primary data-source for the project is the Mass Observation Archive at the University of Sussex, Brighton (see http://www.massobs.org.uk/). Mass Observation asked panellists to write openly about formal politics on five occasions between 1945 and 1950, and four occasions between 1996 and 2014. Altogether, if we sample 60 panellists for each occasion, responses amount to approximately 800 sheets of typed, single-spaced, A4 paper. ...

[ 60 ? IS THAT MASS OBSERVATION AFTER THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT'S CUTS ? ]

... we find much evidence of anti-politics. Citizens may have voted, with turnout reaching a post-war high of 90% (adjusted) in the General Election of 1951. But they do not appear to have thought very highly of politicians. One common story at the time was that politicians were self-serving – they were “self-seekers”, “place-seekers”, “climbers”, and “careerists”. Another common story was that politicians were not straight-talking – they were “gas-bags” and “gift-of-the-gabbers”. ... Parties were perceived to be unnecessary and corrosive of government. One common story at the time was that “partymen” were just “dirt-diggers”, “mud-slingers”, “axe-grinders”, “fear-mongers”, and “vote-mongers”. They talked, disagreed, and fought when citizens wanted action along what they perceived to be obvious lines. Another common story was that such action could be taken by a national government of problem-solving “statesmen” – people of “ability” and “character” who were “objective”, “moderate”, “diplomatic”, “tolerant”, “tactful”, “competent”, “capable”, “skilled”, “intelligent”, “clever”, “wise”, “efficient”, “hard-working”, and “conscientious”. ...


[ BUT THESE ARE THE SENTIMENTS OF PEOPLE WHO INSTINCTIVELY DISLIKE DEMOCRACY AND YET DO NOT KNOW THAT THE NAME OF THEIR OWN POLITICAL INSTINCT IS " REPUBLICAN " - NOR THAT BEING " ANTI-DEMOCRATIC " IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING " ANTI-POLITICAL " - RATHER IT IS THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE ANTI-POLITICAL AND THUS " DE-POLITICISATION " IS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF DEMOCRACY AND THEIR BEMOANING IT IS MERELY THEIR ANXIETY AT THE HOSTILITY WHICH THEY ARE ENCOUNTERING FROM THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE INSTINCTIVELY DOING POLITICS THE CORRECT WAY. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHOM WE NEED TO EXPLAIN REPUBLICANISM TO BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE DENOUNCING THEM AS " ANTI-POLITICAL " BECAUSE REPUBLICAN METHODS ARE DIFFERENT FROM DEMOCRATIC METHODS : UNLIKE THE ULTRAIST METHODS OF DEMOCRATS THE ALTRUIST METHODS OF REPUBLICANS ARE TRULY POLITICAL - I.E. REPUBLICAN ALTRUISMS RECONCILE AND UNIFY SOCIETIES WHEREAS DEMOCRATIC ULTRAISMS DIVIDE AND DESTROY SOCIETIES - BY LICENCING THE EMERGENCE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL OF THE OTHER ULTRAISMS : HIERARCHY, ARISTOCRACY AND MONARCHY ... AND POSSIBLY MANY OTHERS NEVER IMAGINED BY THE ORIGINAL REPUBLICAN THEORISTS.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now if you can understand that as the difference between Democrats and Republicans you can understand the disaster which overtook British and Irish politics in the 1790s when William Pitt unleashed " The English Terror " against what I refer to as " The United Republican Movement." The United Irishmen, the United Scotsmen, the United Englishmen and the United Britons were driven initially by deeply anti-war sentiments because they were deeply sympathetic to the peaceful aspirations of the new Republicanism in France which they hoped would become a unifying movement bringing peace to a Europe that had only recently been riven by a previous war - arguably the first world war - the Seven Years' War. The early 19c Republicans in Wales intensely identified with the cause of world peace but as a consequence of their idealistic opposition to the war unleashed by the United Kingdom against the first Republic of France they were denounced as traitors and progressively thereafter Republicanism was denounced as subversive and as a consequence became so on its fringes as the Democrats in the United Kingdom began to practice the de-politicisation which still characterises this political system to this day. It became axiomatic that political criticism was subversive and so even to sing a song or crack a joke could lead to a person being on trial for their life, and faced with such fatal enmity in their own government Republicans looked to those abroad that they hoped would prove to be their friends amongst the Republicans in France - with disastrous results : some of them hoped that the French would send them military aid in the 1790s and their causes were callously used as diversionary tactics - and those who did not join themselves to " The Black Legion " in Wales were as a consequence severely punished politically despite remaining pacifists and pacificators i.e. " White." As the 19c progressed with more and more laws being passed to all but make Republicanism illegal, there was intense propaganda made to convince ordinary people that it was illegal and as a consequence many of The People in Wales now believe that it is.

Meanwhile the Aristocracy gradually learned throughout the 19c how to handle the introduction of voting and to pass their reforms of the limited franchise off as introducing Democracy despite the fact that they had allowed nothing but voting whilst hedging the constitution of the political system called the United Kingdom all around with provisions to prevent the development of Democracy. The Aristocracy's main concern throughout the 19c was to secure Ireland, first of all by drawing it into the Union of Great Britain and Ireland and then by preventing The People in Ireland from extricating themselves by any kind of voting mechanism : they persisted in this until the very end in 1922 when despite Sinn Fein's peaceful triumph at the ballot box they had to defend their legitimately elected government with arms. Now the fact that the United Kingdom as a political system was unmasked in the ultimate Ultraism of Monarchists waging war against an elected government demonstrates that systems of voting are merely contentions within a society conducted by ballots not bullets - but that bullets will follow when the political system has no laws to declare the legitimacy of a political argument's success. Republicans are the advocates of political systems which are governed by such laws, and the objective shared by all Republicans is that of political systems directed towards the establishment of peace - ultimately world peace. How then has the word ' Republican ' become so perversely inverted in its connotations as to become synonymous in the United Kingdom with war ?

Think of it this way : if you wanted to learn something about Africans and Africa, Jews and Judaism or Communists and Communism - would you think it wise to actively seek out and trust to the opinions of Racists, Anti-Semites or anti-Communists - on the basis that they expressed their opinions the most loudly on those subjects ? And why do such opinionators promote such ignorant, prejudiced bigotry ? Generally because there is something to be gained from it - and the truth has to be denied in order to deny the just claims of others to be treated with equal diginty and to enjoy the same rights as everybody else. What is there to be gained then from destroying the reputation of the most important of all political theories and the one which was the most well established in Britain and Ireland - so well established that the words ' De Res Publicae ' appeared on official bank notes which were in circulation in the 1790s ? It was to stop politics from happening - to prevent any criticism of the political system called the United Kingdom and of the way in which it made its decisions i.e. of its being utterly controlled by an Aristocracy : the absolute power of the House of Lords was not even partially checked until 1911. The reason why the House of Lords allowed the incremental reforms in the franchise during the course of the 19c was because they reasoned that Democrats could be bought off - but Republicans could not ! The same lesson has been learned since the world over, which is why we hear so much praise for Democracy and so little of Republicanism at all - especially of the classic ' Citizen of The World ' Cosmopolitan politics of the 1790s which would create multiple systems of global government which would dismantle the ' nation-states ' and through the application of Altruism in multiple world-wide jurisdictions bring an end to all of the Ultraisms : Hierarchy, Democracy, Aristocracy and Monarchy - and any others found trying to represent their own interests as the ' Res Publica.'

I KNOW ... IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN ... AND WE WILL NEVER TRAVEL TO THE STARS ... BUT THAT ASPIRATION LED TO BOOTS STAMPING ON THE FACE OF THE MOON ... WPS ...

Now as an Ultraism, what remedies exist for the de-politicisation which Democrats practice ? The problem in the political system called the United Kingdom - not to be confused with the idea of ' Britain and Northern Ireland etc ' which is a real place containing a Dis-United Res Publica in which The People in Wales, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and several other countries either immediately next door or attached nearby or far away - in various ways - are being set at each other's throats by the dysfunctionality of the political system's bastardised version of ' Democracy ' applied like lip-stick to this Aristocratic pig ... oh - the problem ? ... Well in order to win a majority of seats a political party has to be constructed out of a variety of disparate ideological parts and in order to form these diverse political communities into something that presents a united appearance to the electorate these ideological differences have to be set aside ... by the time that a party becomes electable it has to have dispensed with any kind of useful ideological analysis, in other words mass political parties end up being devoid of any ideology ... this for some is very pleasing because without an ideology there is no claim made for any subscriptions being made to any morality or ethics : the party exists solely upon the moral good of being electable and the ethic of promising anything in order to obtain power over the state ... from a Republican point of view such parties are pointless because they exist only for the purposes of those within them, and so they have redefined The Public Interest to be that of their own interest : thus Democrats are Ultraists - and therefore natural bedfellows with any of the other forms of Ultraism : they will strike deals with the media, the modern equivalents of the medieval Hierarchs, to tell lies for them ; they will strike deals with the corporations, the modern equivalents of the Aristocrats, to provide finance for them ; they will strike deals with the military, the modern equivalents of the Monarchs, to provide wars for them. As a political system the United Kingdom presents us with the very picture of an almost complete Ultraism with the Democrats acting as the management, the Hierarchs the public relations department, the Aristocrats the shareholders and the Monarchy being in the most successful manufacturing business ever devised - after all, there is a limit to how much bread you can give away but no limit to the demand for lead, excepting that point when you can no longer give way any bread ...

How then can we stop a political system like the United Kingdom blundering blindly onwards towards the destruction of our society in World War Three ? Most of The People are aware that the United Kingdom as a political system is beginning to seem weird, that there is something wrong with the way in which political discourse is being conducted - that the Democrats in the United Kingdom are somehow seeming to be out of focus, that they can not be trusted and that nobody is really willing to give them their votes in exchange for promises of sky-hooks and buckets of steam and ... and ? One of the remedies which Republicanism used to recommend was a vigorous publicly conducted moral debate i.e. there were various schemes of organised religious activity which were to be protected from political interference - but this was not the relegation of religion to merely a matter of private contemplation and private charitable works, but an extremely public and constant religious moral debate of an equally public and constant political ethical debate - in other words, to promote the health of both the religious and political life of a society, both morality and ethics were to be held in a constant public dialogue or dialectic with each other with a firm line drawn between them ... a sort of badminton - to be played with a lot of attitude. The intention behind this was to prevent control over the state being seized by those of a sectarian ideological community whilst still benefiting from their critique, and likewise to stop those who had seized control of the state working it the other way and establishing control over religious debate to suppress criticism : this is what we are now calling de-politicisation - our politicians have deliberately got rid of the ' secular ' ideologies which are the modern ' secular ' counter-parts of their ' religious ' precedents ...

Whilst it was a disaster for the state in many countries to have been seized by the Hierarchs who preached the various bastardised versions of the ideologies of Communism, Socialism and Anarchism - it was equally so for the states in those countries seized by Hierarchs who preached various bastardised versions of the ideologies of Conservativism, Fascism and Liberalism : we need all of these belief systems - and many others - to be present and very vocal in their moral criticisms of the ethics being practised by our politicians ... but it will probably be a good idea to treat them as Republicanism treated the religious belief systems of the 18c and to maintain their public debate of the morality to be practised in society as a separate public debate to that of the ethics to be practised in society. Now it is 03.00 am and I am rambling but I want to finally point out that under the guise of " British Values " and " British Human Rights " what we are being faced with is a state wholly within the maw of a community of Ultraists which is establishing its own ideology as an orthodoxy which will have the force of law behind it, an established religion which claims itself not to be a religion at all but to be possessed of values that are better than the universal values to be found in ancient religious ideologies which have evolved and established viable value systems which the political system called the United Kingdom seeks to legislate away as being inconvenient for its purposes. A glaring example of this might be marriage, not that I disapprove of the love which homosexual people feel towards each other - I regard love as a lovely thing and to be cherished wherever it is found, our lives are short and I begrudge nobody that little blessing - but ... should the basic teachings of a long established religion be legislated away by those who do not practise that religion ? ... The Democrats in the United Kingdom obviously think that all other communities should be Democratic and we are now seeing all sorts of legislative interference in voluntary bodies that the state should not be regulating at all. Republicans would not allow this : only non-consenting relationships should be subject to the rule of law and it is surely bizarre that marriages of any sort are regulated by law, let alone that the state should decide by statute to change the orthodoxy and orthopraxis of a long established religion that the legislators themselves have no part in. What this demonstrates is the potential tyranny hidden within plain sight in the political system called the United Kingdom which has never had any limits placed upon it and which never will if the Ultraists which it is designed to serve continue to control it to this degree whilst pretending that what they are doing is ' de-politicised ' and beyond moral and ethical criticism.

Ultraists are a perennial feature of society and the best defence against them is to be rid of The Dis-United Kingdom and to establish The United Republic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
To:
Subject: Depoliticisation: Bribes & Threats V Morals & Ethics
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 02:37:28 +0000

Dear Ross Beveridge,

I borrowed a couple of paragraphs from your blog piece -

http://www.psa.ac.uk/psa-communities/specialist-groups/anti-politics-and-depoliticisation/blog/anti-politics-explained

and wrote - http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=2647#2647

You will see that I am out on a different line of thought, and no - I do not write great pieces : this is just to reflect pub talk.

Regards

David B. Lawrence
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2637

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well ... no use hiding your Light under a ****-all ... Polly Toynbee is a very prominently opining opinion-maker ... I am fed up of BBC reporting of politics ... when they report the rugby we not only get the highlighlights on the news but also the pre-match, post-match, re-match, reminisce-a-match, buy-the-tee-shirt-o-match ... not to mention the opinions of all of those who did not watch the match but still want to talk about it at length ... oh - and we get to actually watch the match and buy the DVD and ... OK ... it is true that we now have BBC Parliament so we too can watch our political matches as presented ... but not those parts which are conducted in secret ... not those parts of any debate which are self-censored ... and whilst our politicians of course are always trying to imitate various popular primadonna actresses and sportswomen ( excepting the women, who keep trying instead to copy male role models - and with less success ) ... nobody who is actually interested in politics and therefore a Republican in Wales is going to be interested in the pointless point-scoring, fake foul-calls, pretended tantrums and tossing up of rackets accompanied by screams of " I DON'T BELIEVE IT ! " as practised by The Democrats in Wales ... excepting of course that we are entertained by their own-goals ... I have my recording of that " DEATH TO THE BADGERS ! " speech constantly playing on a loop of red tape ...

From:
To:
Subject: FW: Dear Today ( and Polly Toynbee ) - Labour's " Revolution " - ASK SOMEBODY TO DISCUSS " DE-POLITICISATION " & " ANTI-POLITICS "
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:25:14 +0000

David B. Lawrence

From:
To:
Subject: Dear Today ( and Polly Toynbee ) - Labour's " Revolution " - ASK SOMEBODY TO DISCUSS " DE-POLITICISATION " & " ANTI-POLITICS "
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:16:03 +0000

Dear Today BBC Radio 4,

You debate the upsurge of support for Jeremy Corbyn as if it is an utterly weird pertubation and has no explanation, but those of us who were accused of being " extremists " by both Thatcherites and Kinnockites because we asked questions - and either never joined or permanently left behind us the corrupt machine politics which has resulted in the present mess - think that the explanation is obvious : this is a desire to return to correctly conducted political debates - a return to sanity.

As journalists you ought to consider your irresponsibilities in creating machine politics by not correctly reporting arguments and by not asking searching questions of those conducting them : contrast this with analysis provided by sports journalists.

Apparently yourselves ( and this morning Polly Toynbee ) are unaware of the extensive arguments over DE-POLITICISATION which have been taking place : political people on both " The Left and Right " have been fulminating about these since the 1980s : try -

Is anti-politics explained by depoliticisation ?

By Nick Clarke, Will Jennings, Jonathan Moss and Gerry Stoker

https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/blog/anti-politics-explained-depoliticisation

" On 10 November 2014, James Landale described “an era of anti-politics” for BBC News: when citizens don’t join political parties, don’t vote, don’t trust politicians, feel alienated from politics, feel that Westminster is powerless to effect meaningful change, turn to small parties like UKIP and the Green Party, prefer their MPs to be more constituency-focused, and prefer coalition government to majority government. On 16 February 2015, Steve Richards wrote in The Independent of “the age of anti-politics”: when voters feel disconnected from politics and angry with politicians, while politicians feel insecure in the face of such anger. In this blog, in this apparent ‘age’ or ‘era’ of anti-politics, we consider the relationship between anti-politics and depoliticisation. We begin with some definitions ...

... ‘depoliticisation’ and ‘anti-politics’ are used to mean different but related things. Depoliticisation is the cause. Anti-politics is the effect. Here, anti-politics describes a generalised disaffection in contemporary democracies, expressed in low levels of satisfaction with governments, low levels of trust in politicians, and disengagement from political institutions like parties and elections. We are using the terms in this latter way for our current project : Popular Understandings of Politics in Britain, 1937-2014. We seek to explain anti-politics in contemporary Britain, defined as negativity towards formal politics and expressed in such things as declining trust in politicians, declining party membership, and declining voter turnout. We consider a range of potential explanations including depoliticisation. ...

David B. Lawrence,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Damcanol - Theoretical All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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


© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 :: 
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games