Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

August 27, 2017

No platform for fascists?

Filed under: anti-fascism — louisproyect @ 8:14 pm

Recently two important figures on the left said that they opposed the antifa tactic of using violence to silence white supremacists. In an interview given to the rightwing Washington Examiner, Noam Chomsky stated that “blocking talks” such as those given by Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos was wrong in principle and “generally self-destructive.” In some ways, this might have been expected given Chomsky’s defense of Robert Faurrison, a holocaust denier whose right to continue teaching at the University of Lyon was defended in a petition he signed. Also, during the time Chomsky was involved with protests against the war in Vietnam, he was always hostile–like Theodor Adorno–to on-campus protests that interfered with research even if it was in service of the war.

Meanwhile, Robert McChesney, a U. of Illinois professor of communications and one-time co-editor of Monthly Review, raised eyebrows when he told NPR that he sided with Richard Spencer against various Internet companies that have effectively banned neo-Nazi websites like Stormfront and Daily Stormer. McChesney’s interest in these measures has a lot to do with worries that they will also be used against the left: “What’s to stop them from turning around and saying, ‘Well, we don’t like these people who are advocating gay rights. We don’t like these people who are advocating workers’ rights’?”

There are already signs that this is exactly what is happening. Two days ago the NY Times reported:

An influential website linked to violence at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg last month has been ordered to shut down, in the first such move against left-wing extremists in the country, officials in Germany said Friday.

Thomas de Maizière, the interior minister, said that the unrest in Hamburg, during which more than 20,000 police officers were deployed and more than 400 people arrested or detained, had been stirred up on the website and showed the “serious consequences” of left-wing extremism.

“The prelude to the G-20 summit in Hamburg was not the only time that violent actions and attacks on infrastructural facilities were mobilized on linksunten.indymedia,” he said, referring to the website.

The Interior Ministry said the website was the “most influential online platform for vicious left-wing extremists in Germany,” and noted that it had been used for years to spread criminal content and to incite violence.

Ideologically, Chomsky is a far cry from Marxism. McChesney is a lot closer but his emphasis is primarily on corporate control of media. He wrote about the sea change that took place in the 1920s when radio stations were no longer publicly owned in a book titled “Rich Media, Poor Democracy”. It meant that a handful of powerful corporations could set the political agenda just as they would do later on for television. The same model exists today with the Internet, even though it is nominally public and open to all. Nobody would likely prevent the Stormfront webmaster from using email, especially if it is a fake name. But when ISP’s refuse to host his website, you are silencing him.

Obviously this is not just a question of Internet freedom or the right of a Richard Spencer to give a talk on a campus. It is much deeper than that and requires an engagement with the relationship between Marxism and “no platforming”. While the largely anarchist base of antifa has little regard for free speech niceties, there are some groups on the Marxist left that see things the same way.

The Spartacist League is probably the most prominent group on the American left that shares the antifa perspective. In 1975 it organized a protest at San Francisco State that was indistinguishable from the one that took place in Berkeley against Yiannopoulos despite their presumed ideological differences:

On March 10 some 150 people responded to a clarion call for a mass demonstration to protest the scheduled appearance of Nazi party members on the San Francisco State University campus. Students as well as workers from the area joined the militant picket line which was organized by the “Ad Hoc Committee to Stop the Fascists,” a united front initiated and energetically built by the Spartacus Youth League. The angry demonstrators not only physically confronted the Nazis, but succeeded in driving the fascist vermin off campus.

Although they are far apart in terms of their understanding of Trotsky, the SWP in Great Britain also supports “no platforming” even though there is some evidence that the International Marxist Group of the 1970s led by Tariq Ali pioneered the tactic and even coined the term in the September 18th issue of The Red Mole, the party’s newspaper. In what appears to be 64 point type, the paper exclaimed: “No Platform for Racists” (i.e., the National Front and the Monday Club) and advocated tactics identical to those on the “It’s Going Down” website.

The National Front and the Monday Club were “mortal enemies of the working class” that had to be “stopped in their tracks”. The newspaper argued that these groups needed to be confronted, were “not going to be convinced by rational argument”, and called for “a concerted counter-attack” against both groups. The only way to deal with them was to “break up their activities before they grow to a size where they can begin to smash the activities of the working class.”

While the National Front was clearly a fascist group, the Monday Club was arguably nothing more than the British equivalent of the Reagan wing of the Republican Party. Would Tariq Ali and company have tried to bust up a rally just of the Monday Club? By the same token, would the antifa activists feel justified in busting up a meeting held for Ann Coulter? As it happens, Berkeley told her that a meeting sponsored by the Young Republicans would be rescheduled for a day when there were no students on campus—something she considered a form of censorship. If she had gone ahead and spoken on the originally scheduled date, would this have prompted antifa to organize (or disorganize) the same kind of adventure that made Milo Yiannopoulos appear as a victim, so much so that he earned a spot on the Bill Maher show where his repugnant ideas reached millions?

For some leftists the “no platform” net can be spread rather wide. Over the weekend of  July 2-4, 1971, the National Peace Action Coalition held a conference to organize mass actions that year. At the Friday night rally, Senator Vance Hartke and Victor Reuther, a United Auto Worker leader, were scheduled to speak but dozens of SDS’ers aligned with the Maoist PLP faction teamed up with a smaller number of Spartacist League members to prevent the meeting from going forward. They had brought bullhorns with them and as Reuther got up to speak, they tried to drown him out with chants opposing “the sellouts”. They were escorted out by the scruff of the neck.

Even within anarchist ranks, there have been indications that offensive speakers must be silenced even when they are anarchists themselves. At a 2014 conference held at Portland State University, members of the audience tried to shout down Kristian Williams, an anarchist author who had made statements agreeing with Laura Kipnis about “sexual paranoia” coming to campus. At least they didn’t punch him in the face.

When it comes to the question of “free speech for fascists”, Marxism and the ACLU part ways. For free speech absolutists, protesting fascist events would likely be considered out of bounds but for Marxists there is an obligation to confront fascist rallies and meetings on a principled basis. For example, the students at Berkeley made the right choice to show up on the doorstep of the Student Union where Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak. If their numbers were so massive that it would have been impossible to get inside the building, that would have been just fine. Instead what happened was a small group of antifa dictated tactics that made it easy for the entire protest to be stigmatized as violating democratic rights.

Above all, tactics have to be dictated by the reality on the ground. For example, there was a massive protest against fascist leader Gerald L.K. Smith’s talk in Minneapolis on August 21, 1946. When trade unionists began marching toward the hotel where it was supposed to be held, Smith’s goons attempted to break up their line. This led to a pitched battle that moved inside the hotel with chairs flying everywhere until the fascists were routed. It is important to note that this march was organized by trade union leaders who had been democratically elected by the ranks. This was a time before the witch-hunt had taken its toll. It is the model for the kind of movement we need today, one based on accountability, transparency and democracy—something sorely missing from the antifa adventurism.

If it is important to build mass actions against fascist rallies, etc., it is just as important to oppose bans on such groups by the government. In the late 50s, George Lincoln Rockwell launched a career as the American Fuhrer that drew enormous media attention, much more so than Richard Spencer today. Like Spencer, Rockwell had very few followers and relied on TV and newspaper coverage to help him recruit the sort of sick and ignorant rabble drawn to an openly neo-Nazi cult. Like antifa, the state hoped to shut him down except with legal action rather than fists. As expected, the ACLU always took his case when he was denied a permit to speak and fought against legislation that would put his party on the government’s “subversive” list. The SWP, which had helped to organize the protest against Smith, also opposed such laws but for the same reasons as McChesney: “Such infringements of anyone’s rights, no matter who it may be, inevitably put in question everyone’s democratic rights. Didn’t America learn that to its cost in the witch-hunting days of President Truman and Senator McCarthy?”

I would caution my Marxist comrades to think deeply about these questions no matter their visceral satisfaction over seeing Richard Spencer getting punched in the face. There are clear signs that the authoritarian in control of the executive branch will be exploiting antifa adventurism to crack down on the entire left just as Berlusconi did in Italy in the 1980s. The adventurism of the autonomists, who are really the forerunners of antifa in the USA today, gave him just the excuse he needed to clamp down on democratic rights.

Like the Spartacist League and SDS/PLP, the Italian ultraleft sought to shut down events organized by those they considered “counter-revolutionary”. In 1977, there was a nation-wide student occupation protesting an education “reform” bill that prompted the Communist Party to intervene on behalf of the government.

On February 17 a two thousand strong detachment of CP trade unionists accompanied their leader Luciano Lama to the campus of the University of Rome where he intended to deliver a speech against the occupation. Not long after his talk began, ultra-leftists donned masks and led an assault on Lama and his supporters.  At least fifty people were seriously injured in the fracas. This violent attack gave the government the pretext it needed to launch an assault on the university. Two thousand cops raided the campus and used tear gas and clubbed everybody in sight.

A revolution in the USA will be a violent affair. Make no mistake about it.  But in the stages leading up to that epochal event, force has to be used intelligently and most of all on behalf of defending the existing movements. Right now with so much emphasis on shutting down the likes of Richard Spencer, whose naked fascism has very little purchase, aren’t more important struggles being neglected? In New York City, workers at Spectrum (a cable provider once known as Time-Warner) have been on strike for 5 months and are suffering. A NY Times article described how strikers have been affected:

Walter Smith, a cable technician at Spectrum for six years who lives in the Bronx, received an eviction notice in July after falling behind on his bills, he said. The father of two has not worked since early October, when he had surgery to remove a benign tumor on his head. When he was ready return to work in April, workers had just gone on strike.

“The strike has lasted longer than anybody could have imagined,” Mr. Smith, 48, said. “Emotionally, dealing with the tumor and then this financially, it has been tough. I have a strong family that keeps me grounded.”

With strikes being undermined for the past twenty years, a trade union resisting the bosses is something that the left should get behind. Maybe we should put punching fascists on the back burner for a while and spend more time punching a corporation like Time-Warner instead, the corporation that owns Spectrum Cable, the ever-so-progressive HBO, and CNN, the 24/7 enemy of Trumpism. After all it is capitalism that is the enemy, not just fascism.

 

15 Comments »

  1. I agree in general with your analysis, but you are off base to equate Milo with fascism, and approve of preventing him to speak when you say:
    “For free speech absolutists, the right to protest fascist events would be considered out of bounds but for Marxists there is an obligation to confront fascist rallies and meetings on a principled basis. For example, the students at Berkeley made the right choice to show up on the doorstep of the Student Union where Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak. If their numbers were so massive that it would have been impossible to get inside the building, that would have been just fine. Instead what happened was a small group of antifa dictated tactics that made it easy for the entire protest to be stigmatized as in defiance of democratic rights.”
    I hardly share Milo’s views on every issue, and he is overly provocative in his presentation. But he has also made some cogent points that antifas, some feminists, and the ruling class press object to, such as his correctly pointing out that pederasty is a consensual phenomenon and not harmful to the men and youths involved. Shutting people down because one disagrees with them, which is the antifas’ modus operandi, is reprehensible, though a quite common practice on college campuses these days. As someone who has had anarchists, feminists, and fascist Christians attempt to prevent him from speaking over the years, I am highly skeptical of the masked anarchist types even when they are confronting vermin like neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Many radical homosexuals like myself would be no safer under them than under the Nazis.
    David

    Comment by David Thorstad — August 27, 2017 @ 8:40 pm

  2. > Even within anarchist ranks, there have been indications that offensive speakers must be silenced even when they are anarchists themselves

    Anarchist Lierre Keith had a Cayenne laced pie thrown at her when she questioned some vegetarian platitudes

    The no platform idea is stronger on the west coast. East coast antifa confront fascists, but it is more like street turf battles. Or as the Village Motherfuckers usex to describe themselves “we’re a street gang with an analysis”.

    Comment by Adelson — August 28, 2017 @ 10:21 am

  3. David:

    Let’s not get seduced by libertarian position-mongering, especially coming from a subhuman piece of shit like Milo, who is essentially a fascist. We are dealing here with ideology, The surface content of the things spokespeople say is never the whole story–much or most of the meaning is latent or unconscious or deliberately disguised–often for reasons the speaker will not or emotionally cannot acknowledge.

    We in the U.S. are forever seduced by political one-liners that express what we fondly term “positions.” But these are merely commodities for sale in the “marketplace of ideas.” The marketplace itself is always the first object of analysis. What we are willing, in the popular phrase, to “buy” (as in, “I’ll buy that”) is meaningless in and of itself.

    This is where Marx and the too-much-belabored Freud converge–and why both are so viscerally hated and misrepresented by American pseudo-intellectual neoliberal “culture,” including that segment that perversely considers itself somehow “left.”

    They tell you what you are thinking in spite of your denials. Horrors!

    An awareness of this is probably one reason why misguided people on the left attack the “free speech” of Milo and company. For fascists, free speech is mostly freedom to lie, starting with lies about who and what one is oneself when speaking in public. The reality is that we all have an obligation to truth. In principal, there can be no freedom of speech for deliberate liars–at least, for those who–as even that great apologist for public lying, Plato, put it–have the lie in their soul. We let people speak because final truth is always to be sought, not because they have a constitutional right to lie about everything.

    That said, on the political level the adventurist confrontationalism and combativeness of Black Bloc and AWN-tee-faw (oh do let’s pronounce that correctly, like awr-tee-zah-NAHL) is pure poison strategically and tactically and actually constitutes a kind of lie in itself–the lie that all these mostly unblooded petty-bourgeois white people are reality hardened fighters for, if not the working class, at least “the people yes” in the broadest world sense. Louis is absolutely right about this.

    A footnote: The obnoxious, lying, ideological hysterical nature of the fuss about pederasty in current neoliberal culture should not obscure the underlying viciousness of child abuse, which is a widespread and terrible reality between entirely unequal partners, the weaker of whom have no real choice in the matter. In America, this is a hallmark of good Republican fathers, brothers, and uncles, especially the professedly Christian ones. I completely fail to grasp why a “child” (even a “youth” close to the age of consent, which hardly covers the whole group “children,” which is included in the American definition of the word pederasty) can’t bloody well wait a couple of years before getting it on, especially given the fact that others will have to bear the consequences if something bad (venereal disease, pregnancy, emotional breakdown, grievous bodily harm) happens as a result. Ditto the older partner.

    If an individual is psychologically capable of freely consenting to sex, that person can equally well delay sexual gratification given a sound reason to do so. What is the metaphysical urgency of a particular sex act in and of itself, apart from the powerful nature of the sex drive?

    As to that painted insect Milo, I don’t have time to rummage through his excretions on the subject, but as I recall he likes to portray himself as a victim of child abuse even as he justifies pederasty. It’s a very confused position. If he’s the result, it’s a powerful indictment of his “position.”

    Comment by Farans Kalosar — August 28, 2017 @ 12:23 pm

  4. And this is where Marxism and I part ways. I’m on the ACLU’s side on this, and I think violent revolution is just pie in the sky fantasy at this point, if it ever was desirable to begin with.

    Comment by JT — August 28, 2017 @ 12:37 pm

  5. My comment seems to not be coming through, not sure why.

    But I was trying to say this is where “Marxism” and I totally part ways, as I side with the ACLU and Chomsky on this. I also think violent revolution is a pie in the sky fantasy at this point in technology and history.

    Comment by J T — August 28, 2017 @ 12:39 pm

  6. Could you write something on the left and police too? This issue ties in with the violence/non-violence dichotomy that plagues left-wing tactics.

    A heated controversy recently erupted at the DSA about Danny Fentonte, who was elected to the NPC without disclosing his past work as liason between CLEAT (a cop union) and the CWA. https://medium.com/@pplswar/dsas-danny-fetonte-the-npc-steering-committee-shows-no-moral-courage-f307542bcc33. While DSA delegates should have known about Fentonte (all this info was in the public domain) – the fact that they didn’t suggests just how inept they are – obviously Fentonte should have known better than to stay mum about working for the cops, and should therefore resign.

    But the more interesting question is whether it’s ever okay for socialists (not necessarily making that assumption about Fentonte) to organize the police. The prevailing view on the modern “far-left” view seems to be that it’s never okay, because the police are not workers, because the police are nothing more than a repressive arm of capital, because the police are inherently racist and can only stop being racist if they disappear. There is no doubt that police are not ordinary workers, and that police unions are absolutely awful institutions. At the same time, there has never been a successful revolution that did not infiltrate and turn the army and the police.Activists would never pass up the opportunity to organize among the military. And cops are workers in the sense that they earn wages, follow orders, and are generally from working class backgrounds. But the violence vs non-violence debate ignores all this, and frames it as a question of either fighting or shaming the police. How any of this is supposed to stop the police from repressing the left is left unanswered. If we assume every cop is inherently a class enemy who will not hesitate to crush workers and POC if capital orders him to, then neither the violent nor the non-violent tactics will protect the left.

    The obvious problem with all this is that police repression is not what’s currently holding the left back. Furthermore, cops are overwhelmingly arch-reactionaries and “organizing” (from the left) or infiltrating them at a time when working class militancy is in tatters seems like it’s hardly worth the opportunity cost. If fact, it may be pretty much impossible. But, taking the longer view, it seems like an essential step, for reasons already stated.

    Comment by max — August 28, 2017 @ 4:13 pm

  7. edit: “If fact, it may be pretty much impossible “

    Comment by max — August 28, 2017 @ 4:16 pm

  8. edit: edit: “If fact, it may be pretty much impossible *insert: currently* “

    Comment by max — August 28, 2017 @ 4:47 pm

  9. Dear Max,
    You only asked for edit. I will do better and give you credit, not the kind that comes with a card.

    Comment by CLK — August 29, 2017 @ 4:45 am

  10. re. International Marxist Group in 1970’s

    The IMG did take a lead in pushing the “no platform” policy from 1974 onwards,
    But it wasn’t all about campus debates, it was in response to the growth of the neo-Nazi National Front, which was gaining substantial votes in local elections in the wake of the Uganda Asian crisis. e.g. 20% of the vote in Leicester, where many Ugandan Asians had settled and worked in the textile industry.

    At Red Lion Square in 1974, a young student called Kevin Gateley, who was protesting against the fascists, was killed by the police.
    The event and its aftermath are covered reasonably accurately here:-
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Square_disorders.

    The leadership of the US SWP (which was then affiliated with the IMG) criticised its tactics.
    But the real problem was that the united front created (“Liberation”, IMG, IS, students unions etc.) was simply too small to carry out its stated aim.
    Nor did it occur in an area where the local population might come out to give their support.

    This is exactly what happened at Cable St in 1936, which almost *all* sections of the left in Britain regard as an exemplary model of how to confront fascist provocations.
    It still has important lessons today and is covered here.
    http://www.cablestreet.uk/
    Lewisham in 1977 built on the approach used at Cable St and largely succeded in its aim of stopping the fascists marching through an immigrant area.

    There are lots of descriptions of Lewisham on the web.
    One of them is here:-
    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/remembering-the-battle-of-lewisham

    Another, more detailed one, with lots of references and personal interviews is here:-
    https://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/the-battle-of-lewisham/

    Comment by prianikoff — August 29, 2017 @ 8:16 am

  11. So the DSA is now killing itself already with incessant infighting? Just wonderful. And the whole “prison abolition” as opposed to adopting more humane incarceration (like in Norway) is just a silly leftist posturing meant to appeal to a small clique of people and not a mass base, which leaves me worried for the DSA’s future. I don’t want it to go down the route of Occupy.

    Comment by jtylercc — August 29, 2017 @ 2:12 pm

  12. Because there’s some sort of phantom Stasi (PRISM?) constantly making my comments appear and disappear, I’ll try posting this again:

    So the DSA is now killing itself already with incessant infighting? Just wonderful. And the whole “prison abolition” as opposed to adopting more humane incarceration (like in Norway) is just a silly leftist posturing meant to appeal to a small clique of well off college “radicals” and not a mass base, which leaves me worried for the DSA’s future. I don’t want it to go down the route of Occupy. We really need a mass socialist party right now, whether you’re a social democrat or a communist.

    Comment by J.T. — August 29, 2017 @ 2:37 pm

  13. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/41750-what-the-abolition-of-the-british-slave-trade-can-teach-us-about-free-speech When we discuss freedom of speech, we all too often inherit the idea that we should model ourselves after those highly educated, well-dressed, erudite and allegedly sober men on the floor of the House of Commons, who, in spite of the charged nature of the content, stayed through the night to debate and consider. The dominant notion of “campus free speech” evokes images of the packed halls at Cambridge or Oxford where clean-scrubbed young men, future parliamentarians (and slave-owners), battle with wits for the ears and minds of their colleagues.

    Yet what of the white abolitionists sitting in the gallery who had sacrificed their lives, their wealth and their time for their hopeless cause, forced to listen to the pompous, bought-off aristocrats and sneering slavers spew lies and patent propaganda? What of those abolitionists beaten on the docks of Liverpool, Bristol or London for speaking out?

    And what, indeed, of Equiano and the other Black abolitionist leaders whose fingernails must have shredded their own palms as they listened to the civil discourse of the men who had themselves murdered and raped other human beings whom they claimed to own, or who had licensed and profited from that work done by others? How must they have felt, these Black abolitionists who were barred from speaking at all, who had to listen to their stories and their ideas and their research and their monumental pain expressed in dulcet tones by wealthy white do-gooders eager, in spite of their conviction, not to offend or upset the uncomfortable centrists, the “swing voters” of Parliament who held the lives of hundreds of thousands in their well-fed hands? These Black abolitionists must have known that, even if successful, their own labors would be erased and forgotten by the tides of white history, a history that would lionize the Wilberforces and largely ignore the Equianos.

    Could any of us, today, have blamed any one of them for barring the doors and lighting the parliament house on fire? Or for at least screaming in rage at the absurd spectacle below? They chose not to.

    And how much has changed?

    We are discussing today whether or not Nazis and white supremacists should be allowed to speak publicly, to rally in the streets, and to be taken seriously in the media and on campuses. There are plenty of liberal white people who have developed sophisticated arguments for why they should be allowed to do so, or at least why they ought not to be stopped. We are told that limiting freedom of speech is a slippery slope, that once it is undermined in one instance it is weakened in all instances. We are told that giving any attention to these heinous views and people only encourages them. We are told that the future of our civilization depends on civil debate, even with uncivil actors. We are told that their racist ideas are so ludicrous that they will fall like dominoes if vigorously and publicly refuted in debate. We are told that shutting them down is not strategic — though we are rarely informed what, if any, strategy is in play.

    These are all arguments from the proverbial “floor” of parliament. Regardless of their content, they reinforce the authority of the parliament as the only legitimate realm of discussion and decision-making. Yet the irony was, as the later history of abolition proved, the laws of parliament have always been full of loopholes to be abused by the powerful. And as we have learned, even once slavery was abolished, Britain continued to profit from and manage a vast racist empire, even unto the present day when British corporations and financial interests control huge swaths of the rest of the world’s wealth.

    The view of this “debate” and of free speech from the gallery is much different, then and now.

    Many people today can imagine how those who watched silently from the gallery of the Parliament felt because they endure an analogous experience every day in this racist society, still. And still they bite their tongues as the would-be parliamentarians demand a “civil” debate about the very possibility of their freedom and safety. Meanwhile, scholars and writers who publicly decry racism are still subject to death threats and abuse, threats which are made more credible by increasingly well-organized far-right ideologues emboldened by their public notoriety.

    Lest we forget, the British did not “free the slaves.” Enslaved Africans abolished slavery through rebellion, riots, subversion and conspiracy. They also, in the acts of people like Equiano, used diplomacy, writing, lobbying and political organizing. The white abolitionists simply caught up to the facts on the ground that were being actively changed by the direct action of enslaved people.

    When we assess the question of free speech and anti-fascist action, we need to remember that those of us who have inherited the privileges and perspectives of whiteness have been trained not to see what is obvious to many others. The fetishization of the abstract notion of free speech as an unassailable virtue must be complicated by the real histories of struggles for collective liberation.

    Comment by Tracy Rosenberg — August 29, 2017 @ 11:56 pm

  14. Too bad Tracy didn’t notice that I took up Vytovsky’s nonsense in a subsequent post.

    Comment by louisproyect — August 30, 2017 @ 12:41 am

  15. Re: unions. If unions are weak, maybe a new party could fill the vacuum by providing a focus for organization of workers’ councils, strikes, mutual aid, and the other things that unions used to do and now can’t do. The Democrat and Republithug parties are both antiparties–you can’t join them and you can’t go to them with an issue, a grievance, or a request for assistance. That’s on purpose to forestall the evils of “party,” which was denounced by all the Floundering Bothers. It’s an Augustinian concept of a party–better that than to burn.

    Comment by Farans Kalosar — August 30, 2017 @ 12:39 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: