Jump to content

The homosexual elite and the velvet mafia


Golden Retriever
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/29/2021 at 4:04 PM, ConspiracyTruths.co.uk said:

As a gay person I feel qualified to make a few comments here.

 

First of all, don't worry, I am not offended by anyones opinion, and I've read the entire thread. 

 

Second, there most certainly is an agenda at play, but don't confuse yourselves with the idea that they are somehow making people gay. Trust me, this can't be done. You are either gay or you are not, you aren't influenced or manipulated into finding members of the same sex attractive. Perhaps through some advanced mind control techniques, but not with a few magazines and TV articles. What kids are being deliberately confused and influenced by at the moment is gender identity, or a lack of. Allowing people to ignore basic science and adopt alternative genders is a mainstream agenda being pushed on young adults and children, it still doesn't make them gay, it just messes them up. 

 

Third, I don't think many satanist really care about the gender of the children, they care only about the energy, yes it is sexually perverse, but I don't think that is what this is actually about for them, it is used because it is one of their ways of extracting/harnessing that energy, along with sacrifice and other rituals. 

 

Are more people gay today that 50 years ago? Who knows... You may think so, because it is now more accepted by society - perfectly reasonably if you ask me, why should it bother anyone else if two consenting adults want to be together? The agenda you are missing is that it not about gay men, it's about feminine men, and believe me most straight men these days are more feminine than me. This is why you see so many 'camp' personalities on TV, because masculinity is considered toxic these days. Why is oestrogen being pumped into food and water these days, what is that doing to men?

 

The LGBT community (or whatever sequence of letters it calls itself now) does not represent all of us. In fact I am offended to be cast into a group of people who seem to demand a different label for every aspect of their schizophrenic personality. While I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it does not impede on, cause harm or upset others, being gay is not nearly the same as being transgender, genderless or whatever they are choosing to label themselves as now. To be lumbered into some special group with these people, many of whom clearly have deeply rooted mental illnesses is beyond offensive to me. The whole culture is rooted in perverse sexual deviancy and all to often it is being deliberately targeted at vulnerable kids. 

 

Gay people aren't the problem, paedophilia is.

 

As some have mentioned Jimmy Savile earlier, I thought I'd share my article. Did you know he was one head of Broadmoor and also questioned by police in relation to the Yorkshire ripper murders? Read my article here.

 

 

 

 

Great post but I have to disagree on one thing you say. I think that they can make  "majority" of the population do what ever the FU£k they like with their programming. You only have to look at covid for that. Almost everyone in the human race just wants to be accepted and will do anything to fit in (even if it don't feel right). If being homosexual is taboo then the  numbers go down and vise-versa.  I believe it's been a population control method throughout history as well (more homosexuals equals less births and again vise versa).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

 

Where are any of your comments against high profile homosexuals who are part of the elite and promote homoseuxuality on this thread? One example being Stephen Fry.

 

Where are your comments about the homosexual elite?

 

Stephen Fry claims he took cocaine at Buckingham Palace and the House of  Lords in new book - Mirror Online

 

As far as I'm concerned, there is no homosexual elite, no more than there is an heterosexual elite. Elitism is in the eye of the beholder. There are some individuals who have done a lot to achieve status in whatever field they are in, and their gay sexuality is just a coincidence. Stephen Fry didn't become who he is just because he is gay, but he has used his sexuality to enhance his persona. Not all gays do that. It's not a black and white issue. It comes down to individuality.

 

Just out of curiosity, even though I don't regard Stephen Fry as being elite or in some way above me or any other person, what terrible thing are you accusing him of exactly? Does being photographed with the Queen make you guilty of anything, in and of itself? If there had been cameras in ancient times, would Moses have been guilty of something for being photographed with the Pharaoh? Would Daniel have been guilty of something for being photographed with Nebuchadnezzar?

 

Having said that, I've never said ALL gay people are innocent, as there are obviously gay men who have committed serious crimes against humanity, such as Dennis Nilsen. He wasn't innocent. He was found guilty of being a serial murderer, So I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that i said ALL gay people are innocent. Either back up your claim or stop making things up.

 

 

Edited by RobSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RobSS said:

As far as I'm concerned, there is no homosexual elite

 

The way i see it is that there are people who exist in different communities and often those communities overlap

 

For example all the people on this forum exist in this david icke social forum community. Some of those people may also be involved in activism off the forum eg anti-lockdown marches and through that they may be in other groups. However not everyone in those groups will also be a member of the David icke social forum.

 

So they are circles of people that overlap in some places

 

This is true of the elite also. The elites will for example be freemasons and will know each other through that circle. Lets take the 'cambridge 5' spies i mentioned earlier in the thread. They were in oxbridge universities so they mixed with circles of people in those universities. Then within the universities they mixed within marxist circles and also they were gay so they were also part of the gay scene and may have known each other through those circles

 

The question is whether or not various circles would then allow some people greater degrees of soft power influence for example through connections and pull within those circles. Will some people within some circles protect other friends or associates within certain circles? For example would the people in those marxist circles have been more likely to have protected each other from outside interference? Do freemasons keep secrets amongst themselves? The cambridge 5 were in ALL of these circles and more besides for example they were also in british intelligence so they were moving in spook circles too.

 

Would their allegiance to any of the various aspects of their identities cause them to not disclose things that would otherwise be in the public interest to know? I do believe that goes on. So in the case of gay power is it possible that gay people may exert influence on society through their associations with the gay community in otherwords the existence of a 'velvet mafia?'

 

I'll give you an example. A gay student in my class had a relationship with a gay lecturer during the course i was on. This all went on behind the scenes and if it hadn't been for a bit of gossip going around no one would have known which would mean that an invisible form of influence may have been shaping certain events that might have unfairly advantaged some. Could this for example impact on that students grade?

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

The way i see it is that there are people who exist in different communities and often those communities overlap

 

For example all the people on this forum exist in this david icke social forum community. Some of those people may also be involved in activism off the forum eg anti-lockdown marches and through that they may be in other groups. However not everyone in those groups will also be a member of the David icke social forum.

 

So they are circles of people that overlap in some places

 

This is true of the elite also. The elites will for example be freemasons and will know each other through that circle. Lets take the 'cambridge 5' spies i mentioned earlier in the thread. They were in oxbridge universities so they mixed with circles of people in those universities. Then within the universities they mixed within marxist circles and also they were gay so they were also part of the gay scene and may have known each other through those circles

 

The question is whether or not various circles would then allow some people greater degrees of soft power influence for example through connections and pull within those circles. Will some people within some circles protect other friends or associates within certain circles? For example would the people in those marxist circles have been more likely to have protected each other from outside interference? Do freemasons keep secrets amongst themselves? The cambridge 5 were in ALL of these circles and more besides for example they were also in british intelligence so they were moving in spook circles too.

 

Would their allegiance to any of the various aspects of their identities cause them to not disclose things that would otherwise be in the public interest to know? I do believe that goes on. So in the case of gay power is it possible that gay people may exert influence on society through their associations with the gay community in otherwords the existence of a 'velvet mafia?'

 

I'll give you an example. A gay student in my class had a relationship with a gay lecturer during the course i was on. This all went on behind the scenes and if it hadn't been for a bit of gossip going around no one would have known which would mean that an invisible form of influence may have been shaping certain events that might have unfairly advantaged some. Could this for example impact on that students grade?

 

Of course there is corruption, and where there's corruption, it should be exposed. I agree that some gay people exert some influence on society but they don't represent all gay people and not all gay people desire to exert negative influences.

 

What's really needed are as many specifics as possible, and not just vague academic theorising or things that needlessly tar a whole group of people with same brush. I'm not saying you're doing that, but some could take it that way when they see things like gay elites or mafias are responsible for this or that because it could be taken to be understood that all gays are like that because all gays have an elite, etc., which is nonsense. That's what happens with scapegoating agendas and the need to find a bogeyman to detract from a real issue. All cheap and nasty, crude, lowest common denominator kind of stuff.

 

You cited an example of a gay student who had a relationship with a gay lecturer. Now if that gay student was given an unfair advantage over others, then there should be action to bring justice to the situation, but I don't see how that affects gay people in general, but it is good that you cited a specific concern as an example.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RobSS said:

Of course there is corruption, and where there's corruption, it should be exposed. I agree that some gay people exert some influence on society but they don't represent all gay people and not all gay people desire to exert negative influences.

 

I don't think the title of the thread insists that ALL gay people are somehow in some sort of conspiracy

 

It just mentions a 'velvet mafia'

 

Now lets consider that within circles there are other circles. So for example lets say that within the gay scene which the cambridge 5 were mixing there were other circles too. For example there may have been people in that wider gay scene who also identified other people as fellow members of say a marxist scene or perhaps they might have been members of the same freemasonic lodge or perhaps part of another occult group or scene and perhaps some of them were part of a pedophile circle

 

As David has said all the pedophile circles are really just part of one big ring and that circle also overlaps massively with dark occultism and in turn those two circles will overlap with other circles such as british intelligence, politics, media etc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

I don't think the title of the thread insists that ALL gay people are somehow in some sort of conspiracy

 

It just mentions a 'velvet mafia'

 

Now lets consider that within circles there are other circles. So for example lets say that within the gay scene which the cambridge 5 were mixing there were other circles too. For example there may have been people in that wider gay scene who also identified other people as fellow members of say a marxist scene or perhaps they might have been members of the same freemasonic lodge or perhaps part of another occult group or scene and perhaps some of them were part of a pedophile circle

 

As David has said all the pedophile circles are really just part of one big ring and that circle also overlaps massively with dark occultism and in turn those two circles will overlap with other circles such as british intelligence, politics, media etc

 

If someone or a group of people are committing a crime, it should be exposed and justice should be served. I think the term "mafia" is too strong a word. It's an emotive term designed to rile up the mindset or circle of people that like to find scapegoats and bogeymen for societies problems or even their own psychological problems. The closest thing I can think of that comes anywhere near to a gay mafia were the East End Kray twins, but even so, they were gangsters who happened to be gay. Being gay in itself isn't a crime and being gay didn't make the Kray twins who they became. It was their egos that created what they became. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by RobSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RobSS said:

If someone or a group of people are committing a crime, it should be exposed and justice should be served. I think the term "mafia" is too strong a word. It's an emotive term designed to rile up the mindset or circle of people that like to find scapegoats and bogeymen for societies problems or even their own psychological problems. The closest thing I can think of that comes anywhere near to a gay mafia were the East End Cray twins, but even so, they were gangsters who happened to be gay. Being gay in itself isn't a crime and being gay didn't make the Cray twins who they became. It was their egos that created what they became.

 

were both the kray twins gay? I always thought it was just one of them?

 

so they were mixing in a bunch of circles for example celebrity circles too and i've heard it said that they were procuring things for powerful people but i don't know the specifics

 

The mafia are bound by a code of silence to protect what they call 'our thing' which is basically an understanding that they are part of a defined group that is looking out for each others interests at the expense of everyone elses

 

kinda like intersectionality....

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

were both the kray twins gay? I always thought it was just one of them?

 

so they were mixing in a bunch of circles for example celebrity circles too and i've heard it said that they were procuring things for powerful people but i don't know the specifics

 

The mafia are basically bound by a code of silence to protect what they call 'our thing' which is basically an understanding that they are part of a defined group that is looking out for each others interests at the expense of everyone elses

 

kinda like intersectionality....

 

According to some reports I've read, the Kray twins had an incestuous gay sex with each other. I would say they were gangsters who happened to be gay. People don't refer to the American mafia as being the "heterosexual  mafia", so why call the Krays a "gay mafia", when they were engaged in so many aspects of criminal activity, from sex crimes to robbery, just like the mafia in America, who also operated brothels and sex trafficking. They're just known as the mafia, not the heterosexual mafia.

 

 

Edited by RobSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RobSS said:

According to some reports I've read, the Kray twins had an incestuous gay sex with each other. I would say they were gangsters who happened to be gay. People don't refer to the American mafia as being the "heterosexual  mafia", so why call the Krays a "gay mafia", when they were engaged in so many aspects of criminal activities, just like the mafia in America, who also operated brothels and sex trafficking. They're just known as the mafia, not the heterosexual mafia.

 

well there are claims such as the following that they overlapped with the pedophile scene and the zionists: https://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2019/02/mi5-and-kray-twins.html

 

the connection between zionism and pedophilia are now well established with for example the mega group that were behind jeffrey epstein and the blackmail operations involving the bronfmans and roy cohn etc

 

as for the american mafia they were mostly jewish eg mickey cohen, bugsey seagal, meyer lansky and all the murder inc crew

 

its only hollywood that likes to depict the mafia as all italian but perhaps hollywood is run by the zionists who are trying to conceal that side of their operations....

 

so maybe the american mafia should really be called the 'jewish mafia' and the krays are said to have jewish ancestry

 

If the krays were involved with high level politicians and celebrities and had compromising intel on them that might constitute a security risk and an example of hidden influence

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

well there are claims such as the following that they overlapped with the pedophile scene and the zionists: https://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2019/02/mi5-and-kray-twins.html

 

the connection between zionism and pedophilia are now well established with for example the mega group that were behind jeffrey epstein and the blackmail operations involving the bronfmans and roy cohn etc

 

as for the american mafia they were mostly jewish eg mickey cohen, bugsey seagal, meyer lansky and all the murder inc crew

 

its only hollywood that likes to depict the mafia as all italian but perhaps hollywood is run by the zionists....

 

so maybe the american mafia should really be called the 'jewish mafia' and the krays are said to have jewish ancestry

 

I don't understand the obsession with labels. Labels just distract from the real crime, which is paedophilia or sex trafficking or money laundering or political corruption or whatever it is. The fact is they were criminals who acted as a mafia. They acted within a group or circle, which may have overlapped with other criminal groups or circles. The label thing is just a distraction.

 

 

 

 

Edited by RobSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

Not always. A lack of labels or descriptions of the perps can also distract from the real crime, or the motivations for said crime.

 

But it's still the crime itself that's the issue. The label is secondary and it has nothing to do with other people who come under that label.

 

 

Edited by RobSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RobSS said:

 

How? Please explain!

 

 

 

Well look at the demographics of knife crime for example, then look at the images they put out. Absolutely subversive. This is something that often happens too.

 

Can't be having truth or accurate descriptions, the snowflakes might start burning shit down or something. We must capitulate!

 

 

Do you not think it would help if people understood the backgrounds of our politicians, what they believe, and who their kids often marry etc? Do you not think people would understand their motivations more if they knew they're not regular white people like us? Labels often serve a purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

Well look at the demographics of knife crime for example, then look at the images they put out. Absolutely subversive. This is something that often happens too.

 

Can't be having truth or accurate descriptions, the snowflakes might start burning shit down or something. We must capitulate!

 

 

Do you not think it would help if people understood the backgrounds of our politicians, what they believe, and who their kids often marry etc? Do you not think people would understand their motivations more if they knew they're not regular white people like us? Labels often serve a purpose. 

 

But it's still the crime itself that's the issue. The label is secondary and it has nothing to do with other people who come under that label who haven't committed the crimes.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RobSS said:

But it's still the crime itself that's the issue. The label is secondary and it has nothing to do with other people who come under that label who haven't committed the crimes.

 

I think there's two issues. The individual crime, and the wider crime problem, and people won't understand the wider problems and agendas if they go soft and stop using the correct lexicon.

 

Nobody is saying it has anything to do with others who come under that label, but things should be accurately reported or described. How else do you wake people up?

 

gdfgdfg.jpg

 

^This.

Edited by EnigmaticWorld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RobSS said:

 

Good, that's the point I'm making.

 

 

 

I guess it depends what people mean when they say they don't like labels to be honest.

 

Obviously words designed to dehumanize a whole group are not good. Not saying I get outraged at every slur as I understand that a lot of people have some dark humour and like their banter, but I can understand the argument against that kind of language at least.

 

Some words are just regular terms and descriptions though, and people still take offense to some of them.

Edited by EnigmaticWorld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

I guess it depends what people mean when they say they don't like labels to be honest.

 

Obviously words designed to dehumanize a whole group are not good. Not saying I get outraged at every slur as I understand that a lot of people have some dark humour and like their banter, but I can understand the argument against that kind of language at least.

 

Some words are just regular terms and desriptions though, and people still take offense to some of them.

 

It's not the labels that are the problem but how they're used, which is why it's always good to be clear when using labels that not everyone who comes under that label may be of the same mindset or agenda. David Icke does it a lot and it's really not difficult to be clear. The people who don't like to make it clear are people who like to scapegoat, and people who don't like the general group that that label represents, such as racists and homophobes, for example.

 

 

 

Edited by RobSS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, RobSS said:

 

It's not the labels that are the problem but how they're used, which is why it's always good to be clear when using labels that not everyone who comes under that label may be of the same mindset or agenda. David Icke does it a lot and it's really not difficult to be clear. The people who don't like to make it clear are people who like to scapegoat, and people who don't like the general group that that label represents, such as racists and homophobes, for example.

 

But what is a racist? Years ago I would have said someone that hates people for things they have no control over, like skin colour. These days I don't even know, because I don't think people really give a damn about skin colour besides anti-whites.

People might be attracted to a certain look, but that's more a preference thing. Actual people that hate people for things like skin colour seem very difficult to find. People seem more concerned about behaviour and peoples actions. I don't think there are many racists, just race realists, or people that are racially conscious. Even a lot of white Nationalists would tell you that they support true diversity of peoples.

 

Not sure who coined the term either. It's rumoured to be Trotsky, but I never looked into it much.

 

'PACNCTOB', whose Latin transliteration is 'racistov', i.e., "racists".

 

And what is a homophobe? I struggled with a phobia most of my childhood, and teen years. I can't understand how somebody could have a phobia about gays though. Most people don't have a fear of homosexuals, or even attitudes that are very anti-homosexual, but I understand latter point was different years ago.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

'Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s'

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weinberg_(psychologist)#Early_life

Edited by EnigmaticWorld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

But what is a racist? Years ago I would have said someone that hates people for things they have no control over, like skin colour. These days I don't even know, because I don't think people really give a damn about skin colour besides anti-whites.

People might be attracted to a certain look, but that's more a preference thing. Actual people that hate people for things like skin colour seem very difficult to find. People seem more concerned about behaviour and peoples actions. I don't think there are many racists, just race realists, or people that are racially conscious. Even a lot of white Nationalists would tell you that they support true diversity of peoples.

 

Not sure who coined the term either. It's rumoured to be Trotsky, but I never looked into it much.

 

'PACNCTOB', whose Latin transliteration is 'racistov', i.e., "racists".

 

And what is a homophobe? I struggled with a phobia most of my childhood, and teen years. I can't understand how somebody could have a phobia about gays though. Most people don't have a fear of homosexuals, or even attitudes that are very anti-homosexual, but I understand latter point was different years ago.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

'Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s'

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weinberg_(psychologist)#Early_life

 

An example of racism or sexism might be rejecting a person for a job because they are black or because they are gay, etc & etc. There are countless variations on that situation. It might be exclusion from a social group, it may involve name calling, or belittling a person, or even violently physically attacking another person just because of their skin colour or sexual orientation, etc.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RobSS said:

An example of racism or sexism might be rejecting a person for a job because they are black or because they are gay, etc & etc. There are countless variations on that situation. It might be exclusion from a social group, it may involve name calling, or belittling a person, or even violently physically attacking another person just because of their skin colour or sexual orientation, etc.

 

can people be racist against white people?

 

for example if an asian person gives a job position to another asian person instead of a white person is that racism?

 

what if an industry is dominated by for example jews would that be racist?

 

what about if a black person doesn't have any white person in their social group. Are they a racist?

 

are bollywood movies that only have asian people in them racist?

 

is name calling white people 'gammon' racist?

 

is dismissing any concerns of white people by calling it 'white fragility' belittling them?

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Macnamara said:

 

can people be racist against white people?

 

for example if an asian person gives a job position to another asian person instead of a white person is that racism?

 

what if an industry is dominated by for example jews would that be racist?

 

what about if a black person doesn't have any white person in their social group. Are they a racist?

 

are bollywood movies that only have asian people in them racist?

 

is name calling white people 'gammon' racist?

 

is dismissing any concerns of white people by calling it 'white fragility' belittling them?

 

Racism can be discrimination by any one race against any other race, so yes, white people can experience racism and racism against white people should not be dismissed, and neither should racism against black people be dismissed because that exists too. It's possible for Indians to be racist against Chines or Japanese, or vice versa. The point is that racism does exist, just like sexism and homophobia also exists, and in a very wide of forms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's a lot of talk of 'cultural appropriation' but is it ok to appropriate white culture?

 

if its not ok to appropriate white culture then the rest of the world should stop speaking english, stop driving on tarmac roads, pneumatic tyres and using internal combustion engines because all of those things came out of white culture

 

how come no one is ever told off for appropriating white culture?

 

the truth is that there is no equality of the rules here. Clearly the game here is to single out white people for different treatment with the ultimate aim of replacing them

 

how is that moral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RobSS said:

Racism can be discrimination by any one race against any other race, so yes, white people can experience racism and racism against white people should not be dismissed

 

But is it ever acknowledged or discussed?

 

the answer is NO

 

Why is that? If you ask a woke person (i have debated many online) they will likely tell you that white people are the demographic majority and therefore it is not possible to be racist against them as the majority is always the 'oppressor' and the minority is always, by default, the 'oppressed'

 

well i've got news for those people: they need to do some travelling because white people are a minority on this earth by a long shot so at what point in this process of replacing white people do the rules of the game change and those espousing anti-white hate start feeling the weight of the law in the same way that white people would now?

 

is it when white people become a demographic minority in this country? Who is then going to flick the switch at that point and ensure that white people get to have the 'oppressed' status? Exactly who is it that is going to safeguard them at that point from racism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Macnamara said:

 

But is it ever acknowledged or discussed?

 

the answer is NO

 

Why is that? If you ask a woke person (i have debated many online) they will likely tell you that white people are the demographic majority and therefore it is not possible to be racist against them as the majority is always the 'oppressor' and the minority is always, by default, the 'oppressed'

 

well i've got news for those people: they need to do some travelling because white people are a minority on this earth by a long shot so at what point in this process of replacing white people do the rules of the game change and those espousing anti-white hate start feeling the weight of the law in the same way that white people would now?

 

is it when white people become a demographic minority in this country? Who is then going to flick the switch at that point and ensure that white people get to have the 'oppressed' status? Exactly who is it that is going to safeguard them at that point from racism?

 

I think you need to take this up with "woke" people and argue with them!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...