I'm afraid that I broke a longstanding personal rule today when I read an article about Tony Blair. I normally refuse to engage with murderers, torturers and imbeciles but I was drawn to his latest comments about how "it makes sense for us to stick together because we're more powerful together, economically and politically." He then tells us that "the best arguments are economic and practical" and I can never resist sublime irony.
This is the man who told us that our security was more important than our liberty as he tried to justify rendition, torture, illegal wars, identity cards, millions of cameras spying on us, the enhancement of police powers, the illegal activities of the press under his governments, 4,500 new criminal offences under his rule, and then trying to convince us that the terror we saw on our streets was nothing to do with him. When he tried to convince us that our liberty is worth losing for our security I was reminded of Benjamin Franklin when he told us that "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Blair seems to have completely missed the salient point that the driving force behind a desire for Scottish Independence is the state of the economy and the state of politics in modern Britain. The best arguments for Independence are indeed economic and political. It was Blair's governments who presided over the ruin of both our economy and our political system. He was ably assisted by the Tories, but he was the person most responsible. People ought to remember his policies of 'light touch' regulation of the banks and the financial system and his government's quite relaxed attitude to people becoming filthy rich. What he forgot to mention that they were equally relaxed about people becoming filthy poor. His was the government who introduced ATOS. His was the government who introduced the Private Finance Initiatives that are ruining the NHS.
So, economically and practically, the only way Scotland has any hope of economic recovery and political democracy is to divorce from the Westminster Parliament that he did so much to reduce to a lying, corrupt and completely unrepresentative farce. No wonder the Tories never criticise him, they have everything to thank him for because he laid the foundations for all the carnage they are inflicting on us.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
t makes sense for us as a UK to stick together because we're more powerful together, economically and politically. And, you know, to reference another debate that's going on, it makes sense for us to remain in Europe because without that weight we will lose influence and lose power both economically and politically.
And I still think that is the best. I think the best arguments are economic and practical and, you know, by and large I think those are the arguments that are being made.
Wednesday, 30 October 2013
Monday, 28 October 2013
Economics? Humbug
Readers of this blog will be well aware of my rejection of the dominant economic theories that govern our society and of my contempt for economists in general. My approach is to listen to an economic expert and promptly believe the opposite. There are exceptions to this rule of course, prominent amongst whom are the Cambridge economist Ha Joon Chang and the American Joseph Stiglitz. Economics is a discredited discipline in the UK with the vast majority of economists still unable to comprehend what happened in 2007 and completely unable to tell us how to rectify the disaster they caused and failed to predict. Anyone who knows me will know that I was predicting the financial crash 10 years before it happened and I don't even study economics; what was coming before 2007 was quite obvious.
The principal reason for the failure of economics in the modern world is that economists don't understand the nature of the subject they are dealing with. As I've written here before, the human being is a social being who necessarily regulates his/her environment and his/her behaviour. As the war-cry of economists since the 1980's has been for deregulation of all economic activity as far as possible, they have been pursuing anti-social and socially destructive policies that finally came to fruition. Economics is a social science and cannot be understood if treated as a standalone activity. Economics is, by its very nature, an interdependent discipline that cannot be understood without reference to the political and social environment within which it operates. Modern economics does not recognise this. All economic activity impacts on the wider social and political world and is in return affected by social and political factors and that is why all the early classical analysts of such behaviour, such as David Hume and Adam Smith referred to this study as political economy.
But most importantly, economics is a product of human nature, economic behaviour is human behaviour and can never be anything else. The human being is a labourer, a producer who engages in production, trade, exchange and barter and the study of economics is the study of that behaviour. If you wish to talk about markets, then you are talking about a human artefact, not something that exists outside of the scope of human behaviour. An economic market is simply a description of the process of exchange, trade and barter of human production.
It is correct to note that human beings are largely motivated by self-interest, the active pursuit of personal gain and property. However, David Hume showed us in the 18th century that such a motivation in people is a real threat to social order and stability noting how our desire for “goods and possessions for ourselves and our nearest friends is insatiable, perpetual, universal and directly destructive of society.” Because of this inherent danger to social order posed by our self-interested desire for gain, we must, paradoxically, recognise that it is also in our own self-interest to constrain such desire. He warns us that this is necessary for the preservation of society telling us that “’tis evident, that the passion is much better satisfy’d by its restraint, than by its liberty.” As a result, Hume is concerned that unregulated greed will effectively destroy social order and society itself if it is not controlled and shackled. How interesting that an 18th century philosopher can accurately predict the financial crisis of the 21st century and pinpoint its causes and yet our political class and our so-called economic experts cannot. We find exactly the same type of warnings in the writings of Adam Smith which should alert us to the fact that there is something seriously wrong with the understanding of economics in modern Britain. Hume warns us that for humans “tis impossible to live in society without restraining themselves by certain rules.” As a result, we are back to the truism that the human being is a regulatory being and large scale policies of deregulation are anti-social and ultimately destructive of society itself. We erect socially preserving rules of conduct because we recognise the need for them as we are by nature social beings and, as Hume notes, “we receive a pleasure from the view of such actions as tend to the peace of society, and an uneasiness from such as are contrary to it.”
I leave you with this thought, if David Hume and Adam Smith are truly the founders of free market economics, what on earth are they teaching in our universities? That is why it is quite correct to say that our government, and particularly our Prime Minister and his Chancellor simply don't know what they are talking about.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
The principal reason for the failure of economics in the modern world is that economists don't understand the nature of the subject they are dealing with. As I've written here before, the human being is a social being who necessarily regulates his/her environment and his/her behaviour. As the war-cry of economists since the 1980's has been for deregulation of all economic activity as far as possible, they have been pursuing anti-social and socially destructive policies that finally came to fruition. Economics is a social science and cannot be understood if treated as a standalone activity. Economics is, by its very nature, an interdependent discipline that cannot be understood without reference to the political and social environment within which it operates. Modern economics does not recognise this. All economic activity impacts on the wider social and political world and is in return affected by social and political factors and that is why all the early classical analysts of such behaviour, such as David Hume and Adam Smith referred to this study as political economy.
But most importantly, economics is a product of human nature, economic behaviour is human behaviour and can never be anything else. The human being is a labourer, a producer who engages in production, trade, exchange and barter and the study of economics is the study of that behaviour. If you wish to talk about markets, then you are talking about a human artefact, not something that exists outside of the scope of human behaviour. An economic market is simply a description of the process of exchange, trade and barter of human production.
It is correct to note that human beings are largely motivated by self-interest, the active pursuit of personal gain and property. However, David Hume showed us in the 18th century that such a motivation in people is a real threat to social order and stability noting how our desire for “goods and possessions for ourselves and our nearest friends is insatiable, perpetual, universal and directly destructive of society.” Because of this inherent danger to social order posed by our self-interested desire for gain, we must, paradoxically, recognise that it is also in our own self-interest to constrain such desire. He warns us that this is necessary for the preservation of society telling us that “’tis evident, that the passion is much better satisfy’d by its restraint, than by its liberty.” As a result, Hume is concerned that unregulated greed will effectively destroy social order and society itself if it is not controlled and shackled. How interesting that an 18th century philosopher can accurately predict the financial crisis of the 21st century and pinpoint its causes and yet our political class and our so-called economic experts cannot. We find exactly the same type of warnings in the writings of Adam Smith which should alert us to the fact that there is something seriously wrong with the understanding of economics in modern Britain. Hume warns us that for humans “tis impossible to live in society without restraining themselves by certain rules.” As a result, we are back to the truism that the human being is a regulatory being and large scale policies of deregulation are anti-social and ultimately destructive of society itself. We erect socially preserving rules of conduct because we recognise the need for them as we are by nature social beings and, as Hume notes, “we receive a pleasure from the view of such actions as tend to the peace of society, and an uneasiness from such as are contrary to it.”
I leave you with this thought, if David Hume and Adam Smith are truly the founders of free market economics, what on earth are they teaching in our universities? That is why it is quite correct to say that our government, and particularly our Prime Minister and his Chancellor simply don't know what they are talking about.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Sunday, 27 October 2013
The Rule of Law - Rest in Peace
As we read how Michael Gove and Lord Nash 'misled' both Houses of Parliament and therefore the British people over the performance of free schools I am left pondering the moral climate of British political and social life. Misled is of course a good example of newspeak for 'lying through their teeth', which of course is the default position for all Westminster politicians. However, lying and indulging in criminal behaviour is now the norm for the political class, the police, the press, business, banks and the security services. In other words, Britain is simply a feral society where morality and the rule of law no longer exists amongst the ruling and governing powers. The law is for the little people.
This is a matter of profound importance for all of us living in this nation as it poses a far more serious threat to social order and stability than any threat of terrorism, crime, or any of the other convenient scapegoats that the governing elite and their lackeys in the press try to scare us with, because, if the people who govern and establish the law, simply refuse to govern with respect to law, tradition and justice, then they set the example for the rest of society. Why should I be bound by the laws of lawbreakers? Why should I live by the morality of the immoral? This is a society where, if working people attempt to engage in the perfectly legal and moral activity of exercising their fundamental human right to withdraw their labour they are branded immoral criminals, whilst the owners and managers of corporations who engineer the conditions whereby workers feel they must use the only weapon at their disposal in order to protect their jobs and livelihood, and who then use the resulting disruption to destroy their employees conditions, lower their wages, remove their pensions and literally blackmail them into acceptance of this criminality are hailed as upright paragons of virtue and probity.
It speaks volumes for the state of this country when the two people talking the most sense about conditions are well-known comedians, Russell Brand and Mark Steele. Brand's Newsnight interview was a classic and Steele's column in the Independent is required reading. Brand's argument that there is no point voting as there is no one worth voting for is quite accurate for the rest of the UK, but does not apply in Scotland. The Scots have an opportunity to affect meaningful change and progress if they have the will and desire to take it. However, with regards the rest of the UK it is a truism that if voting changed anything they would make it illegal.
The UK government genuinely think it is OK for GCHQ to indulge in criminal behaviour and to breach our fundamental human rights. They think its OK to lie, to torture, to invade foreign countries and for their armed forces to murder rape and kill innocent civilians, and its OK to give a benefit cheat ten years in jail whilst a banker who has stolen millions of pounds gets a bonus. I say again, that with respect to the Westminster Parliament the lunatics have taken over the asylum and the criminals have taken over the jails. We have reached a stage where we can put no trust in anyone in government, in authority, or in management. Society is dismantling before our eyes. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
This is a matter of profound importance for all of us living in this nation as it poses a far more serious threat to social order and stability than any threat of terrorism, crime, or any of the other convenient scapegoats that the governing elite and their lackeys in the press try to scare us with, because, if the people who govern and establish the law, simply refuse to govern with respect to law, tradition and justice, then they set the example for the rest of society. Why should I be bound by the laws of lawbreakers? Why should I live by the morality of the immoral? This is a society where, if working people attempt to engage in the perfectly legal and moral activity of exercising their fundamental human right to withdraw their labour they are branded immoral criminals, whilst the owners and managers of corporations who engineer the conditions whereby workers feel they must use the only weapon at their disposal in order to protect their jobs and livelihood, and who then use the resulting disruption to destroy their employees conditions, lower their wages, remove their pensions and literally blackmail them into acceptance of this criminality are hailed as upright paragons of virtue and probity.
It speaks volumes for the state of this country when the two people talking the most sense about conditions are well-known comedians, Russell Brand and Mark Steele. Brand's Newsnight interview was a classic and Steele's column in the Independent is required reading. Brand's argument that there is no point voting as there is no one worth voting for is quite accurate for the rest of the UK, but does not apply in Scotland. The Scots have an opportunity to affect meaningful change and progress if they have the will and desire to take it. However, with regards the rest of the UK it is a truism that if voting changed anything they would make it illegal.
The UK government genuinely think it is OK for GCHQ to indulge in criminal behaviour and to breach our fundamental human rights. They think its OK to lie, to torture, to invade foreign countries and for their armed forces to murder rape and kill innocent civilians, and its OK to give a benefit cheat ten years in jail whilst a banker who has stolen millions of pounds gets a bonus. I say again, that with respect to the Westminster Parliament the lunatics have taken over the asylum and the criminals have taken over the jails. We have reached a stage where we can put no trust in anyone in government, in authority, or in management. Society is dismantling before our eyes. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Thursday, 24 October 2013
Does Scotland have the Energy?
There can surely be no-one left with a scintilla of intelligence who cannot see the dominant free market economic and political system in the UK for anything but the poisonous and ruinous farce that it is. As the energy firms continue to ratchet up the price of electricity and gas, even the Archbishop of Canterbury has taken them to task for their complete absence of moral and civic responsibility in their endless search for ever greater profits. What the energy market demonstrates graphically is that it is most certainly not a market, its a cartel that colludes to rig the system completely in their own interests, and our political class grovel at their feet in impotence.
On the same theme, the catastrophe that is the Grangemouth petrochemical plant is another graphic demonstration of neoliberal greed and ruthlessness. This firm has simply told the workers that they will accept whatever terms and conditions they are prepared to give them or they will simply close the plant, which they then proceeded to do. This type of management has become the norm in Britain, and, as I continually tell you, is part of the process of reducing the British worker to a modern form of slavery. This is a facility that should be nationalised immediately and their entire management prosecuted.
The destruction of British society and its replacement by a neoliberal tyranny is nearing completion. We have the most appalling set of politicians imaginable who will neither stand for their country or their electorate and who cave into business interests with a speed that makes one want to weep with embarrassment. The Westminster Parliament is a disgrace and every one of its elected members should be turned out of office and forbidden to hold public office for the rest of their lives.
As I have said repeatedly, the dominant ideology in this country has no moral or civic perspective whatsoever. It is bankrupt and is simply a system of licensed gangsterism. I repeat, the free market is a fraud and an illusion. There cannot, and should not, ever be such a thing as a free market. All human interactive behaviour must be subject to regulation. But even if a free market was either possible or desirable, what we see before us is so far detached from that it beggars belief that anyone can even remotely believe that we have a market of any form in this country.
What is blindingly obvious is that the people of Scotland have an opportunity to escape from the Westminster pantomime next September and take control of their own political and economic destiny. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
On the same theme, the catastrophe that is the Grangemouth petrochemical plant is another graphic demonstration of neoliberal greed and ruthlessness. This firm has simply told the workers that they will accept whatever terms and conditions they are prepared to give them or they will simply close the plant, which they then proceeded to do. This type of management has become the norm in Britain, and, as I continually tell you, is part of the process of reducing the British worker to a modern form of slavery. This is a facility that should be nationalised immediately and their entire management prosecuted.
The destruction of British society and its replacement by a neoliberal tyranny is nearing completion. We have the most appalling set of politicians imaginable who will neither stand for their country or their electorate and who cave into business interests with a speed that makes one want to weep with embarrassment. The Westminster Parliament is a disgrace and every one of its elected members should be turned out of office and forbidden to hold public office for the rest of their lives.
As I have said repeatedly, the dominant ideology in this country has no moral or civic perspective whatsoever. It is bankrupt and is simply a system of licensed gangsterism. I repeat, the free market is a fraud and an illusion. There cannot, and should not, ever be such a thing as a free market. All human interactive behaviour must be subject to regulation. But even if a free market was either possible or desirable, what we see before us is so far detached from that it beggars belief that anyone can even remotely believe that we have a market of any form in this country.
What is blindingly obvious is that the people of Scotland have an opportunity to escape from the Westminster pantomime next September and take control of their own political and economic destiny. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Sunday, 20 October 2013
If I've nothing to hide I have nothing to fear. Is that so?
I was recently asked to respond to the government's position that if I have nothing to hide then I have nothing to fear. The questioner had a genuine dilemma over this as government propaganda over their sinister surveillance of everything we do is attempting to convince people that this surveillance is necessary and is designed to protect us, and many people are persuaded when their government make claims like this.
The first point to make is that having something that is private to you that you don't want other people to know about is a fundamental human characteristic and is miles apart from having a secret that you feel guilty about. All of us have things that we wish to keep private and it is our right to do so. What the government wants is that you also feel guilty about this and therefore don't complain when they demand to know your private world. We all have thoughts that make us feel ashamed and feel guilty about. Fantasy is a perfectly legitimate human activity and, as you get older you realise that you had nothing to feel guilty about in the first place. In addition, you may do something that you feel guilty about and don't want anyone to know, but, the important point is, that if your activities do no harm to any other person then it is no-one else's business.
The second point is that the government's position is a demonstrable lie as many people who have nothing to hide in our society have been given plenty of reason to be afraid of the government, police and security services, who, if they wish to get you for anything will have no hesitation in inventing something. The police have been demonstrated as being completely without scruple when it comes to fitting people up and lying through their teeth. The security services are equally as culpable.
But the most important point is that breaking the law is a fundamental human right, as long as you are prepared to take the consequences. No-one has an obligation to obey any legislation they feel is fundamentally wrong or corrupt, unless what you are doing will harm someone, such as driving on the wrong side of the road. In some cases it is a moral duty to break the law, such as the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany that required people to openly persecute other people. Laws are simply human artefacts and too many of them simply institutionalise what people in power like or dislike. Law is vital in human society and we must be bound by law and governed by law, but that does not mean that every law is essential or that every law is good or designed to protect us. Too many laws are designed to protect particular sections of society to the exclusion of the rest of us, as Thrasymachus the Sophist tells us; justice is the interests of the strongest. So, we must not be conned into believing that we must always obey the law. Making something legal does not make it either moral or right, and making something illegal does not make it immoral or wrong.
If no-one challenged bad law then we would never have meaningful social change, for example, witchcraft would still be illegal and slavery would still be legal. If we lived in a society where we were incapable of breaking the law, then it would not be worth living in it, it would be completely totalitarian.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
The first point to make is that having something that is private to you that you don't want other people to know about is a fundamental human characteristic and is miles apart from having a secret that you feel guilty about. All of us have things that we wish to keep private and it is our right to do so. What the government wants is that you also feel guilty about this and therefore don't complain when they demand to know your private world. We all have thoughts that make us feel ashamed and feel guilty about. Fantasy is a perfectly legitimate human activity and, as you get older you realise that you had nothing to feel guilty about in the first place. In addition, you may do something that you feel guilty about and don't want anyone to know, but, the important point is, that if your activities do no harm to any other person then it is no-one else's business.
The second point is that the government's position is a demonstrable lie as many people who have nothing to hide in our society have been given plenty of reason to be afraid of the government, police and security services, who, if they wish to get you for anything will have no hesitation in inventing something. The police have been demonstrated as being completely without scruple when it comes to fitting people up and lying through their teeth. The security services are equally as culpable.
But the most important point is that breaking the law is a fundamental human right, as long as you are prepared to take the consequences. No-one has an obligation to obey any legislation they feel is fundamentally wrong or corrupt, unless what you are doing will harm someone, such as driving on the wrong side of the road. In some cases it is a moral duty to break the law, such as the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany that required people to openly persecute other people. Laws are simply human artefacts and too many of them simply institutionalise what people in power like or dislike. Law is vital in human society and we must be bound by law and governed by law, but that does not mean that every law is essential or that every law is good or designed to protect us. Too many laws are designed to protect particular sections of society to the exclusion of the rest of us, as Thrasymachus the Sophist tells us; justice is the interests of the strongest. So, we must not be conned into believing that we must always obey the law. Making something legal does not make it either moral or right, and making something illegal does not make it immoral or wrong.
If no-one challenged bad law then we would never have meaningful social change, for example, witchcraft would still be illegal and slavery would still be legal. If we lived in a society where we were incapable of breaking the law, then it would not be worth living in it, it would be completely totalitarian.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Saturday, 19 October 2013
This was in the Independent
I have copied and pasted below a comment made by a poster in answer to an article in todays Independent newspaper on poverty. It is self-explanatory.
I am posting it here to highlight that not only has someone in our society posted something like this in a national newspaper, but that the newspaper has published it and has not deleted it. The Independent must therefore consider such opinions as valid and representative. If anyone still thinks that Scotland is better together with people like this, then I can only despair and tell you that I am afraid that I not only do not share the same language as you do, but that I do not want to live in the same country as you. There is nothing to be even remotely proud about a nation that conducts itself in this manner. You have been warned.
Chris Lane 14 hours ago
I am posting it here to highlight that not only has someone in our society posted something like this in a national newspaper, but that the newspaper has published it and has not deleted it. The Independent must therefore consider such opinions as valid and representative. If anyone still thinks that Scotland is better together with people like this, then I can only despair and tell you that I am afraid that I not only do not share the same language as you do, but that I do not want to live in the same country as you. There is nothing to be even remotely proud about a nation that conducts itself in this manner. You have been warned.
Chris Lane 14 hours ago
HERE;S a SOLUTION: STERILIZE ALL NON-WHITES EUTHANIZE the DISABLED EXECUTE ALL MURDERERS--RAPIST and RACE MIXERS!!!!! THAT MY FRIEND is a START!!!!!
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Friday, 18 October 2013
Democracy must go
A good insight into the mind of a neoliberal elitist was displayed on Question Time last night by the Daily Telegraph journalist Peter Oborne. During a debate on energy, Oborne was promoting the need for a much expanded programme of fracking, the controversial and environmentally damaging method of tapping into gas resources. He got quite agitated because as most people are very opposed to such activities being conducted in their own neighbourhood, local authorities are very reluctant to grant licences for fracking to take place. Without actually saying so, Oborne indicated that central government should override local councils by making the statement that 'democracy can be an impediment.'
What Oborne was suggesting was the wishes of local residents should simply be ignored because there is a greater need at stake and the locals are simply too selfish and too stupid to be trusted with making decisions that directly affect them. This is exactly the attitude that Blair employed over the war in Iraq.
Since the election of Thatcher, local authorities have been systematically stripped of all their traditional functions and been subjected to endless reform based on neutering them and centralising their functions so that they can be privatised. In his ‘Representative Government’ John Stuart Mill argues that
As I've continually stated in this blog, the dominant free marketeers in our society will not tolerate constraints on their activities. Oborne highlights a serious threat to our nation as he openly states that democracy is now a nuisance; his words should not be taken lightly. You have been warned. We must get free from the corruption of Westminster as soon as we can.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
What Oborne was suggesting was the wishes of local residents should simply be ignored because there is a greater need at stake and the locals are simply too selfish and too stupid to be trusted with making decisions that directly affect them. This is exactly the attitude that Blair employed over the war in Iraq.
Since the election of Thatcher, local authorities have been systematically stripped of all their traditional functions and been subjected to endless reform based on neutering them and centralising their functions so that they can be privatised. In his ‘Representative Government’ John Stuart Mill argues that
‘The very object of having a local representation, is in
order that those who have any interest in common which they do not share with
the general body of their countrymen may manage that joint interest by
themselves.’
A genuine Liberal and democratic society requires a system of limited government
with defined independent centres of power. It requires legitimacy and
representation and as wide a dispersal of power as is necessary. The principle
of local government is designed to satisfy such requirements as is neatly
summed up by Mill. If such local responsibility were to be replaced by
centralised administration from London, such local
individuality of approach would be sacrificed to uniformity, and that the
adaptability of local decision-making would give way to rigidity and the
centralised imposition of a bureaucratic ‘only one way’ of doing things, and I trust I don't have to remind you that the repeated mantra of the neoliberals is that there is no alternative. As
local government enjoys a degree of autonomy from the centre, the power of the
state is therefore fragmented and limited. As the political theorist John Kingdom notes, the elimination
of local government is generally taken as a symptom of totalitarianism.
Kingdom notes that local government is found in virtually
all developed states as a complement to central government and is generally
seen as a sign of a healthy democracy. The diversity of life in a modern state
such as Britain requires different approaches to similar problems. For example,
consider policing or refuse collection. It is not rocket science to understand
that the solutions to both such fundamental requirements of modern life require
differing methods of implementation in different locations. Policing and refuse
collection in the City of Glasgow will be markedly different in style and
implementation from that in Ross and Cromarty. The principles remain the same,
but the methodology will differ quite considerably. As a result, direct
responsibility for the government of a locality can harness powerful forces on
behalf of that community and imaginative and meaningful solutions to local
issues.
As I've continually stated in this blog, the dominant free marketeers in our society will not tolerate constraints on their activities. Oborne highlights a serious threat to our nation as he openly states that democracy is now a nuisance; his words should not be taken lightly. You have been warned. We must get free from the corruption of Westminster as soon as we can.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)