WHY SOCIALISM IS THE DUMB BLONDE OF AMERICAN POLITICS

Dachshynddawg

Verified User
Despite the total failure of socialism, it is amazingly popular in the US where recent polls have shown that around 43% of Americans say socialism would be a good thing for the country. There are also an astonishing number of socialist sympathisers on this forum.


This all really blows my mind, as does the fact that socialist politicians like Alexandria Ocasio - Cortez and Bernie Sanders are celebrities in the US.


My intuitive rationalisation for the strange popularity of socialism in America is that it is the result of plain stupidity. Because, given its disastrous track record only a person who was quite dumb would ever vote socialist.


Given this, I was interested to see that a scientific research paper was published in the High-Impact Journal, "Intelligence", in 2014 by an Oxford University academic , Dr Noah Carl, (REFERENCE: Noah Carl, "Intelligence", 44 (2014), pp. 142 - 149) showing that intelligence was strongly correlated with a belief in less government intervention in the economy.


This was not a one-off result. There is also reputable research evidence supporting the conclusion that Americans who identify as Libertarian (classic Liberals), radical believers in capitalism and social freedoms have the highest average IQ of any American political identity. In short, the negative relationship between IQ and socialism suggest that the ideology is not the most intelligent view.
.

One reason that socialism is so surprisingly popular in America is that expressing socialist views can look very kind and caring. To disagree with these kind of views, even if it suggests intelligence, is not so sexy.


Imagine you are a young man on a first date with an attractive girl and the conversation rears into politics. The girl expresses a desire to help the poor with more welfare spending. She is probably a rather caring, compassionate person. If the boy disagrees and suggests that cuts to welfare will incentivise poor people to look for work, instead of being dependent on the state, immediately the girl will see red flags. How could she possibly start a relationship with someone so callous ?


Socialism is sexy, but it is the proverbial dumb blonde of American politics. And a potential partner probably prefers sexy AOC-stye socialism over the cold rationalism and logic of heartless capitalism.


I remember the night over 30 years ago that I was in my lounge room at home and I first heard the news that the Berlin Wall had fallen come down the wire. I must confess that I got a little "misty" for a while as I watched the the historic images on my television. After all it was the end of the "Evil Empire" and the "Triumph of Human Freedom" I was looking at, and that's not just cheap, empty hyperbole, because I was seeing it with my own eyes for real. It was an extraordinary moving experience to see the overjoyed German people frantically attacking the hated wall with their picks, axes, sledge hammers, iron bars...anything they could find that could smash the wall's four-inch thick concrete.


Like I said at the start of this post, the American love affair with socialism in the 21st century baffles me, regardless of the diabolical and disastrous failures of socialism many US citizens are still irrationally attached to it. I think that our brains are the key to seeing the blatant tragedy of socialism for what it is. And while capitalists should not insult insult the intelligence of their political opponents, they should be frank with them - SOCIALISM IS DUMB !!


Finally, having said that, just because capitalists are smarter does not, of course, mean they are right; BUT, it is foolish for socialists not to take them more seriously.


Dachshund
 
Despite the total failure of socialism, it is amazingly popular in the US where recent polls have shown that around 43% of Americans say socialism would be a good thing for the country.

People stupid enough to think that polls mean anything are stupid enough to embrace Socialism.
 
Imagine you are a young man on a first date with an attractive girl and the conversation rears into politics. The girl expresses a desire to help the poor with more welfare spending. She is probably a rather caring, compassionate person. If the boy disagrees and suggests that cuts to welfare will incentivise poor people to look for work, instead of being dependent on the state, immediately the girl will see red flags. How could she possibly start a relationship with someone so callous ?
Keep your INCEL issues and resentments to yourself.
No one - man or woman- is obligated to accomodate your right wing politics
 
Despite the total failure of socialism, it is amazingly popular in the US where recent polls have shown that around 43% of Americans say socialism would be a good thing for the country. There are also an astonishing number of socialist sympathisers on this forum.


This all really blows my mind, as does the fact that socialist politicians like Alexandria Ocasio - Cortez and Bernie Sanders are celebrities in the US.


My intuitive rationalisation for the strange popularity of socialism in America is that it is the result of plain stupidity. Because, given its disastrous track record only a person who was quite dumb would ever vote socialist.


Given this, I was interested to see that a scientific research paper was published in the High-Impact Journal, "Intelligence", in 2014 by an Oxford University academic , Dr Noah Carl, (REFERENCE: Noah Carl, "Intelligence", 44 (2014), pp. 142 - 149) showing that intelligence was strongly correlated with a belief in less government intervention in the economy.


This was not a one-off result. There is also reputable research evidence supporting the conclusion that Americans who identify as Libertarian (classic Liberals), radical believers in capitalism and social freedoms have the highest average IQ of any American political identity. In short, the negative relationship between IQ and socialism suggest that the ideology is not the most intelligent view.
.

One reason that socialism is so surprisingly popular in America is that expressing socialist views can look very kind and caring. To disagree with these kind of views, even if it suggests intelligence, is not so sexy.


Imagine you are a young man on a first date with an attractive girl and the conversation rears into politics. The girl expresses a desire to help the poor with more welfare spending. She is probably a rather caring, compassionate person. If the boy disagrees and suggests that cuts to welfare will incentivise poor people to look for work, instead of being dependent on the state, immediately the girl will see red flags. How could she possibly start a relationship with someone so callous ?


Socialism is sexy, but it is the proverbial dumb blonde of American politics. And a potential partner probably prefers sexy AOC-stye socialism over the cold rationalism and logic of heartless capitalism.


I remember the night over 30 years ago that I was in my lounge room at home and I first heard the news that the Berlin Wall had fallen come down the wire. I must confess that I got a little "misty" for a while as I watched the the historic images on my television. After all it was the end of the "Evil Empire" and the "Triumph of Human Freedom" I was looking at, and that's not just cheap, empty hyperbole, because I was seeing it with my own eyes for real. It was an extraordinary moving experience to see the overjoyed German people frantically attacking the hated wall with their picks, axes, sledge hammers, iron bars...anything they could find that could smash the wall's four-inch thick concrete.


Like I said at the start of this post, the American love affair with socialism in the 21st century baffles me, regardless of the diabolical and disastrous failures of socialism many US citizens are still irrationally attached to it. I think that our brains are the key to seeing the blatant tragedy of socialism for what it is. And while capitalists should not insult insult the intelligence of their political opponents, they should be frank with them - SOCIALISM IS DUMB !!


Finally, having said that, just because capitalists are smarter does not, of course, mean they are right; BUT, it is foolish for socialists not to take them more seriously.


Dachshund

Are you asserting that there are no improvements that can be made to our economic system?

Are you saying that any improvements that might be able to be made...cannot be obtained from socialism?

Socialism borrows from capitalism...and improves socialism. Are you saying that capitalism cannot improve itself by borrowing ANYTHING from socialism?
 
Hello Dachshynddawg,

Despite the total failure of socialism, it is amazingly popular in the US where recent polls have shown that around 43% of Americans say socialism would be a good thing for the country. There are also an astonishing number of socialist sympathisers on this forum.


This all really blows my mind, as does the fact that socialist politicians like Alexandria Ocasio - Cortez and Bernie Sanders are celebrities in the US.


My intuitive rationalisation for the strange popularity of socialism in America is that it is the result of plain stupidity. Because, given its disastrous track record only a person who was quite dumb would ever vote socialist.


Given this, I was interested to see that a scientific research paper was published in the High-Impact Journal, "Intelligence", in 2014 by an Oxford University academic , Dr Noah Carl, (REFERENCE: Noah Carl, "Intelligence", 44 (2014), pp. 142 - 149) showing that intelligence was strongly correlated with a belief in less government intervention in the economy.


This was not a one-off result. There is also reputable research evidence supporting the conclusion that Americans who identify as Libertarian (classic Liberals), radical believers in capitalism and social freedoms have the highest average IQ of any American political identity. In short, the negative relationship between IQ and socialism suggest that the ideology is not the most intelligent view.
.

One reason that socialism is so surprisingly popular in America is that expressing socialist views can look very kind and caring. To disagree with these kind of views, even if it suggests intelligence, is not so sexy.


Imagine you are a young man on a first date with an attractive girl and the conversation rears into politics. The girl expresses a desire to help the poor with more welfare spending. She is probably a rather caring, compassionate person. If the boy disagrees and suggests that cuts to welfare will incentivise poor people to look for work, instead of being dependent on the state, immediately the girl will see red flags. How could she possibly start a relationship with someone so callous ?


Socialism is sexy, but it is the proverbial dumb blonde of American politics. And a potential partner probably prefers sexy AOC-stye socialism over the cold rationalism and logic of heartless capitalism.


I remember the night over 30 years ago that I was in my lounge room at home and I first heard the news that the Berlin Wall had fallen come down the wire. I must confess that I got a little "misty" for a while as I watched the the historic images on my television. After all it was the end of the "Evil Empire" and the "Triumph of Human Freedom" I was looking at, and that's not just cheap, empty hyperbole, because I was seeing it with my own eyes for real. It was an extraordinary moving experience to see the overjoyed German people frantically attacking the hated wall with their picks, axes, sledge hammers, iron bars...anything they could find that could smash the wall's four-inch thick concrete.


Like I said at the start of this post, the American love affair with socialism in the 21st century baffles me, regardless of the diabolical and disastrous failures of socialism many US citizens are still irrationally attached to it. I think that our brains are the key to seeing the blatant tragedy of socialism for what it is. And while capitalists should not insult insult the intelligence of their political opponents, they should be frank with them - SOCIALISM IS DUMB !!


Finally, having said that, just because capitalists are smarter does not, of course, mean they are right; BUT, it is foolish for socialists not to take them more seriously.


Dachshund

I applaud your consideration for those of opposing views. That is refreshing on a board where 95% of the posts are all about attacking those who hold opposing views.

But I disagree with your perception of socialism.

It seems to be based on the completely unfounded assumption that we have to choose between socialism and capitalism.

We do not have to make such a choice.

We can have elements of both systems. Actually, we already do. And we have had since the 1930's after the rather spectacular failure of capitalism in 1929.

What we want is a hybrid system which incorporates the most desirable features of both systems, while minimizing the worst problems associated with each.

We have been approaching it this way since FDR.

All we have to do is get the balance right.

This argument of yours is completely moot.

Nobody ever has to decide if we should be capitalist or socialist.

We just need to logically determine which system best serves our needs for each commodity and level of each service.

For instance, people are free to use capitalism to buy a car and gas, or they can use socialism and take the bus or train. You can have fancy luxury private transportation if you can afford it, but government provides mass transportation if you can't. That's a good approach. And we essentially do that for food, too. And housing. And education. And on and on.

I think we should do more of that, conservatives want to cut it back.

It's not about whether or not we should have socialism.

It's about how much socialism we should mix with our capitalism. Has been for almost a century.
 
Are you asserting that there are no improvements that can be made to our economic system?

Are you saying that any improvements that might be able to be made...cannot be obtained from socialism?

Socialism borrows from capitalism...and improves socialism. Are you saying that capitalism cannot improve itself by borrowing ANYTHING from socialism?



I am not an advocate of the laissez-faire or the ideology of neo-liberalism, economic approaches that are based on a faith that capitalism, when it is wholly unfettered by ANY form of externally- imposed government regulation is the most desirable and efficacious type of economic system.


It was Laissez-fair capitalism that caused the crash of the US Stock market in 1929 and the ensuing years of the Great Depression.


Similarly it neo-liberal economic ideology that deterred government regulation of the over-heated OTC Derivatives market in the US 12 years ago. The Derivatives Market suddenly imploded in mid- September 2008, that triggered the Global Financial Crisis.


Capitalist economies are not wholly self-regulating in the way that neo-liberal theory argues. Also, capitalist economic systems go through natural cycles of "boom and bust" when they are unsupervised.


In my view capitalist economies do require monitoring by the state and when necessary state intervention to regulate any components of the market that are behaving in a risky, potentially dangerous/harmful way.
.

Having said that, Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayak (the famous neo-liberal academic) were right that free market capitalist economy are very good at regulating themselves, but where Hayak would say leave the market to its own devices and keep the government completely out of its face, I would say that the market does need to regulated by the government, but the extent of any government regulatory interference must be kept to AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. The government should only act to regulate the market when it is clear that a dangerous financial crisis is looming. Or for , example in America where neo-liberal economic policies have been responsible for an extreme and unjustifiable level of income inequality in America. What you call the " 1 %" of obscenely rich/wealthy individuals were created (like Frankenstein monsters) by neo-liberalism. I have no problem with a US government saying that 65 billion dollars is TOO much money for one man (like Bloomberg) to possess. I have no problem with a US government intervening in the market and regulating its activity such that single individuals like Bloomberg are not permitted to accumulate such extraordinary amounts of money; because amongst many other things this poses a threat to democracy. None of this would not mean that the market is not still predominantly capitalist, is is just acknowledging that free-market capitalism is not a perfect economic system and will require government supervision/regulation to ensure that it functions in a reasonable manner, one that ideally benefits everyone in a way that is just.


As for socialism, it is, BY DEFINITION, an economic ideology that argues a centralised state should control, in their entirely all of a nation's means of production. It believes that the sound functioning of the economy can be achieves by teams of "central planners" It seeks to abolish private property, which will result in the crushing of individual freedom (And) the freedom of the individual to be FREE, to be self-responsible and self-regulating is, IMO, the paramount, human, moral value. When you deprive a man of his (moral) liberty he dies inside. It views free market capitalism as immoral and believes capitalist economies should be destroyed and replaced with socialist economies.


But it doesn't work. SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK. And it doesn't have the potential ever to work because it totally misunderstands human nature.


(To be continued...)


Dachshund
 
Despite the total failure of socialism, it is amazingly popular in the US where recent polls have shown that around 43% of Americans say socialism would be a good thing for the country. There are also an astonishing number of socialist sympathisers on this forum.


This all really blows my mind, as does the fact that socialist politicians like Alexandria Ocasio - Cortez and Bernie Sanders are celebrities in the US.


My intuitive rationalisation for the strange popularity of socialism in America is that it is the result of plain stupidity. Because, given its disastrous track record only a person who was quite dumb would ever vote socialist.


Given this, I was interested to see that a scientific research paper was published in the High-Impact Journal, "Intelligence", in 2014 by an Oxford University academic , Dr Noah Carl, (REFERENCE: Noah Carl, "Intelligence", 44 (2014), pp. 142 - 149) showing that intelligence was strongly correlated with a belief in less government intervention in the economy.


This was not a one-off result. There is also reputable research evidence supporting the conclusion that Americans who identify as Libertarian (classic Liberals), radical believers in capitalism and social freedoms have the highest average IQ of any American political identity. In short, the negative relationship between IQ and socialism suggest that the ideology is not the most intelligent view.
.

One reason that socialism is so surprisingly popular in America is that expressing socialist views can look very kind and caring. To disagree with these kind of views, even if it suggests intelligence, is not so sexy.


Imagine you are a young man on a first date with an attractive girl and the conversation rears into politics. The girl expresses a desire to help the poor with more welfare spending. She is probably a rather caring, compassionate person. If the boy disagrees and suggests that cuts to welfare will incentivise poor people to look for work, instead of being dependent on the state, immediately the girl will see red flags. How could she possibly start a relationship with someone so callous ?


Socialism is sexy, but it is the proverbial dumb blonde of American politics. And a potential partner probably prefers sexy AOC-stye socialism over the cold rationalism and logic of heartless capitalism.


I remember the night over 30 years ago that I was in my lounge room at home and I first heard the news that the Berlin Wall had fallen come down the wire. I must confess that I got a little "misty" for a while as I watched the the historic images on my television. After all it was the end of the "Evil Empire" and the "Triumph of Human Freedom" I was looking at, and that's not just cheap, empty hyperbole, because I was seeing it with my own eyes for real. It was an extraordinary moving experience to see the overjoyed German people frantically attacking the hated wall with their picks, axes, sledge hammers, iron bars...anything they could find that could smash the wall's four-inch thick concrete.


Like I said at the start of this post, the American love affair with socialism in the 21st century baffles me, regardless of the diabolical and disastrous failures of socialism many US citizens are still irrationally attached to it. I think that our brains are the key to seeing the blatant tragedy of socialism for what it is. And while capitalists should not insult insult the intelligence of their political opponents, they should be frank with them - SOCIALISM IS DUMB !!


Finally, having said that, just because capitalists are smarter does not, of course, mean they are right; BUT, it is foolish for socialists not to take them more seriously.


Dachshund

What is your definition of Socialism?
 
Welp, you better tell that to the Republican socialists, all led by Trump

Whoa, whoa, hold on there, bucko!

The government helping rich people isn't Socialism!
It's only Socialism when the government helps the working-class.
Do you really think that Saint Trump (peace be upon him) would ever engage in Socialism? Perish the thought!
 
I am not an advocate of the laissez-faire or the ideology of neo-liberalism, economic approaches that are based on a faith that capitalism, when it is wholly unfettered by ANY form of externally- imposed government regulation is the most desirable and efficacious type of economic system.


It was Laissez-fair capitalism that caused the crash of the US Stock market in 1929 and the ensuing years of the Great Depression.


Similarly it neo-liberal economic ideology that deterred government regulation of the over-heated OTC Derivatives market in the US 12 years ago. The Derivatives Market suddenly imploded in mid- September 2008, that triggered the Global Financial Crisis.


Capitalist economies are not wholly self-regulating in the way that neo-liberal theory argues. Also, capitalist economic systems go through natural cycles of "boom and bust" when they are unsupervised.


In my view capitalist economies do require monitoring by the state and when necessary state intervention to regulate any components of the market that are behaving in a risky, potentially dangerous/harmful way.
.

Having said that, Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayak (the famous neo-liberal academic) were right that free market capitalist economy are very good at regulating themselves, but where Hayak would say leave the market to its own devices and keep the government completely out of its face, I would say that the market does need to regulated by the government, but the extent of any government regulatory interference must be kept to AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. The government should only act to regulate the market when it is clear that a dangerous financial crisis is looming. Or for , example in America where neo-liberal economic policies have been responsible for an extreme and unjustifiable level of income inequality in America. What you call the " 1 %" of obscenely rich/wealthy individuals were created (like Frankenstein monsters) by neo-liberalism. I have no problem with a US government saying that 65 billion dollars is TOO much money for one man (like Bloomberg) to possess. I have no problem with a US government intervening in the market and regulating its activity such that single individuals like Bloomberg are not permitted to accumulate such extraordinary amounts of money; because amongst many other things this poses a threat to democracy. None of this would not mean that the market is not still predominantly capitalist, is is just acknowledging that free-market capitalism is not a perfect economic system and will require government supervision/regulation to ensure that it functions in a reasonable manner, one that ideally benefits everyone in a way that is just.


As for socialism, it is, BY DEFINITION, an economic ideology that argues a centralised state should control, in their entirely all of a nation's means of production. It believes that the sound functioning of the economy can be achieves by teams of "central planners" It seeks to abolish private property, which will result in the crushing of individual freedom (And) the freedom of the individual to be FREE, to be self-responsible and self-regulating is, IMO, the paramount, human, moral value. When you deprive a man of his (moral) liberty he dies inside. It views free market capitalism as immoral and believes capitalist economies should be destroyed and replaced with socialist economies.


But it doesn't work. SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK. And it doesn't have the potential ever to work because it totally misunderstands human nature.


(To be continued...)


Dachshund

Ummm...

...was that a "YES" or a "NO"...

...and to which question?
 
Meat puppet AOC was pulled over on K Street in DC as she left a BLM meeting, and the cop said he'd noticed her swerving to the left as she rounded the corner on a one-way street.

He told AOC that he was going to cite her for an illegal left turn. The officer detected the odor of alcohol, so he told AOC to blow into his Breathalyzer.

When the cop saw the reading, he said, "Lady, it looks like you've had a couple of stiff ones".

AOC's eyes widened, and she asked "It shows that, too"?

:truestory:
giphy.gif
 
Despite the total failure of socialism, it is amazingly popular in the US where recent polls have shown that around 43% of Americans say socialism would be a good thing for the country. There are also an astonishing number of socialist sympathisers on this forum.


This all really blows my mind, as does the fact that socialist politicians like Alexandria Ocasio - Cortez and Bernie Sanders are celebrities in the US.


My intuitive rationalisation for the strange popularity of socialism in America is that it is the result of plain stupidity. Because, given its disastrous track record only a person who was quite dumb would ever vote socialist.


Given this, I was interested to see that a scientific research paper was published in the High-Impact Journal, "Intelligence", in 2014 by an Oxford University academic , Dr Noah Carl, (REFERENCE: Noah Carl, "Intelligence", 44 (2014), pp. 142 - 149) showing that intelligence was strongly correlated with a belief in less government intervention in the economy.


This was not a one-off result. There is also reputable research evidence supporting the conclusion that Americans who identify as Libertarian (classic Liberals), radical believers in capitalism and social freedoms have the highest average IQ of any American political identity. In short, the negative relationship between IQ and socialism suggest that the ideology is not the most intelligent view.
.

One reason that socialism is so surprisingly popular in America is that expressing socialist views can look very kind and caring. To disagree with these kind of views, even if it suggests intelligence, is not so sexy.


Imagine you are a young man on a first date with an attractive girl and the conversation rears into politics. The girl expresses a desire to help the poor with more welfare spending. She is probably a rather caring, compassionate person. If the boy disagrees and suggests that cuts to welfare will incentivise poor people to look for work, instead of being dependent on the state, immediately the girl will see red flags. How could she possibly start a relationship with someone so callous ?


Socialism is sexy, but it is the proverbial dumb blonde of American politics. And a potential partner probably prefers sexy AOC-stye socialism over the cold rationalism and logic of heartless capitalism.


I remember the night over 30 years ago that I was in my lounge room at home and I first heard the news that the Berlin Wall had fallen come down the wire. I must confess that I got a little "misty" for a while as I watched the the historic images on my television. After all it was the end of the "Evil Empire" and the "Triumph of Human Freedom" I was looking at, and that's not just cheap, empty hyperbole, because I was seeing it with my own eyes for real. It was an extraordinary moving experience to see the overjoyed German people frantically attacking the hated wall with their picks, axes, sledge hammers, iron bars...anything they could find that could smash the wall's four-inch thick concrete.


Like I said at the start of this post, the American love affair with socialism in the 21st century baffles me, regardless of the diabolical and disastrous failures of socialism many US citizens are still irrationally attached to it. I think that our brains are the key to seeing the blatant tragedy of socialism for what it is. And while capitalists should not insult insult the intelligence of their political opponents, they should be frank with them - SOCIALISM IS DUMB !!


Finally, having said that, just because capitalists are smarter does not, of course, mean they are right; BUT, it is foolish for socialists not to take them more seriously.


Dachshund

Always telling when they leave off the source

A little reality, socialism has been a part of America going back to the 19th Century, if not before. Like all nations in the world, the US has, and has had, a mixed economy, part both socialist and capitalist. To say "the total failure of socialism" doesn't match the reality unless you want to consider the US economy a "total failure"
 
Average American doesn't know what the hell socialism even is. The right has used it as a catch-all boogieman longer than many posters here have been alive. Also notable is the liberal goal isn't socialism but a country where our tax dollars actually benefit the people more than big business and government conquests in the world. Basically like Sweden. As it stands now, even stuff long paid for in a half-assed attempt to try and meet that end are stolen from and put under thumb thanks to greedy conservatives and their dumb, and, or uncaring voters.
 
Average American doesn't know what the hell socialism even is. The right has used it as a catch-all boogieman longer than many posters here have been alive.

That's why so many younger voters are embracing Socialism now. For as long as we've been alive, the Right has used this word to refer to ANY program to help the working-class.

If Boomers get mad that we're not afraid of "Socialism" because it doesn't invoke images of Soviet gulags for us, they should blame themselves for saying the ACA was Socialist.
 
The current, standard definition of socialism is that is an economic system wherein a centralised state owns and controls ALL of the means of production.

Dachshund

Well in that case, there are no politicians or organizations with wide support who want Socialism in the Western world. You can rest easy.
Maybe there are some fringe people here and there who want Socialism, but they have no support, no political power, no influence, and will never succeed in bringing forth Socialism.
 
Keep your INCEL issues and resentments to yourself.
No one - man or woman- is obligated to accomodate your right wing politics

Why do you think anyone is obligated to accommodate your left wing politics?

Note the misspelling from someone that pretends he's more educated than those he claims are idiots.
 
Well in that case, there are no politicians or organizations with wide support who want Socialism in the Western world. You can rest easy.
Maybe there are some fringe people here and there who want Socialism, but they have no support, no political power, no influence, and will never succeed in bringing forth Socialism.

^^^An idiot that believes that his EBT, welfare, MediCAID, and rental assistance isn't socialism.
 
Back
Top