A Brief Response to Dr. Patrick Bond. (And then, no more.)

rds, and the Creator shall smite Dr. Bond with even worse haemhorrhoids than he currently possesses. The Creator is happy to debate with anyone who is genuinely interested in debating. Since Dr. Bond is concerned to deny everything negative which is said about his work, including much that is self-evidently true, there is not much purpose in debating with Dr. Bond.

However, some clarification is in order and for this post the Creator will stop being polite.

Dr. Bond apparently spends a substantial portion of his day searching the Web for “patrick bond”. This suggests either egomania or a level of insecurity requiring therapeutic aid. When he, the Director of the Centre for Civil Society at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and author of numerous books, Web articles and newspaper articles, found that a virtually traffic-free weblog twitted him for using fake statistics to fool John Pilger, he launched into a pompous rebuke and, receiving no apology, repeated this with an extended dishonest rebuttal, the kind of thing which arouses howls of “Get your own blog, asshole!” on better-attended weblogs. This is pathetic.

More to the point, it hides the fact that Dr. Bond did make up statistics.

Dr. Bond falsified statistics for water and electricity cut-offs, first in Elite Transition and then in subsequent research and in publicity material thereafter. This was exposed by the editor of the Mail and Guardian, Ferrial Haffajee, in that organ around 2003 if memory serves. Dr. Bond never refuted the exposure because he could not. Dr. Bond’s claims referred to millions of households and there are only a few millions of households in South Africa. A brief night drive through rural areas, or through black townships, witnessing the lights on, proved that Dr. Bond was lying; Ms. Haffajee’s revelation was only the icing on the cake.

Dr. Bond does not only falsify statistics. He writes pieces for webzines on a regular basis, and in a recent Counterpunch article, the Creator discovered (simply by using Google) one quotation from a government official which had been edited to change its meaning, another “quotation” which appeared to have no valid source, and another which had been uttered by someone different (and much less important) from the person to whom Dr. Bond attributed it. This kind of behaviour would not be tolerated at an undergraduate level.

Why does Dr. Bond lie?

Because it suits his propaganda standpoint, but also because he can. Dr. Bond operates in a cossetted academic environment. He does not submit his material to peer-reviewed journals — why should he, when he edits a well-funded journal and can be assured of being published in prominent webzines like Counterpunch and ZNET? His falsification — academic fraud, as it would be termed if anyone else did such things — has not kept him off the editorial board of Alternation; his externally funded CCS brings money in to his UKZN, which is all that institution cares about.

Dr. Bond can also lie because he is not addressing informed people. His primary audience is liberal white South Africans who never venture beyond the suburbs and loathe the African National Congress, and radical foreigners who trade on neoliberal catastrophe and, with no understanding of South Africa’s actual struggle, loathe the ANC for selling out their own fantasies of what it ought to have done. (Dr. Bond is one of those foreigners, and thus he speaks to them with more than ordinary authority.) His message also matches the message desired by white South African big business; he attacks the government and rich blacks, rather than the plutocracy and rich whites, and this is why his lies are forgiven — Haffajee hired Dr. Bond to complete her newspaper’s smear job on the iconoclastic writer Ronald Suresh Roberts. (Dr. Bond told a lot of lies in that smear, too.)

Well, as the Creator said earlier — is it really so bad to tell lies? Doesn’t the government do that all the time? Yes, which is why leftists should not do it. “Tell no lies, claim no easy victories” is a good watchword, not only a signifier for Amilcar Cabral. It is dangerous to take one’s lies too seriously. Poor Trevor Ngwane of the late and unlamented Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee swallowed Bond’s propaganda until he seems to have lost contact with reality, began making up the membership of his own organisation (in New Left Review), and suffered catastrophic embarrassment when he tried to stand for election in Soweto. Perhaps that could be a warning not to engage with reality!

Lying is not necessary. A solid perspective should be built on the truth. Electricity cuts and water cuts need no exaggeration; even if only ten thousand people have their water cut off it is ten thousand too many. But (as with HIV/AIDS) it is easier to pursue the problem if the numbers are smaller. The larger the problem, the less responsibility one feels for clearing it up, and the greater the temptation to abandon hope. Then, if you are convinced by false or decontextualised quotations that your opponent is insane or irredeemably evil, you will see no hope in engaging with them (which legitimizes any subsequent lies you tell about them). Dr. Bond’s covert message is that the Left cannot win.

Slovenliness, lack of scholarliness and lack of intellectual honesty are only part of Dr. Bond’s story. Dr. Bond (as the Creator has observed) cannot perform valid political analysis because of his disastrously distorted viewpoint. Originally he could not see that his “solutions” would have disastrous consequences. More recently he refrains from offering “solutions”, and hence his (very often mendacious and misleading) criticism can serve the interests of any powerful force challenging the present structure — which at the moment means the plutocratic right wing. Nothing that he has written in the last decade provides grounds for altering this opinion.

The targets whom Dr. Bond has chosen to assault happen to be the same people who are hated by actual South African plutocrats and neoliberals. The media which give Dr. Bond a hearing are controlled by these plutocrats and neoliberals. Received middle-class white wisdom endorses Dr. Bond; he is surfing an artificial wave generated by neoliberalism’s machinery. Hence, in a sense, Dr. Bond is “objectively pro-neoliberalism”, to use Orwell’s phrase which was misused by Christopher Hitchens to justify Bush’s War on Terror. It is dangerous to use the methods and the media of the people whom you are supposedly opposing. Dr. Bond claims to be anti-capitalist, but his real target happens to be the Mbeki wing of the ANC, which was the only powerful force in South Africa today with the slightest chance of hampering the activities of capitalists. Thus in the name of leftism, Dr. Bond is tearing down the prospects of social democracy. (No doubt because he lives in KwaZulu-Natal and is a coward, Dr. Bond has offered no significant criticism of Zuma or his plutocratic, neoliberal cabal.)

This is not all. Here the Creator feels a little uncertain. The following seems a little like a smear, and yet in view of Dr. Bond’s behaviour it should be aired. There is an organisation called Global Research. They have a website; Google it if you will and search for a person named Michael Barker. He has been wandering the maze of Western corporate and government support for the Zimbabwean opposition. He discovered that Dr. Bond had recently worked closely with a man named Kapuya, who was a Reagan-Fascell Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy — a front-organisation for the U.S. government’s meddling in Third World affairs. Dr. Bond had taken money, said Barker, for that work with Kapuya from George Soros’ Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, a conservative organisation (funded by international currency speculation of the kind which Dr. Bond pretends to oppose) also linked with Frederik van Zyl Slabbert, the Afrikaner conservative and fan of the apartheid military. Barker identified other problems, such as a member of Dr. Bond’s advisory board who was linked with Action-Aid International, apparently a British government front-organisation.

One may, of course, say that Dr. Bond is entitled to work with such people. On the other hand, it is intriguing to see someone who pretends to such purity and integrity (although practising so little of what he pretends) lining up with right-wing foreign agents without a murmur of self-criticism. Is it possible that Dr Bond is knowingly taking the Western neoliberal shilling? Who funds his lavish lifestyle, anyway?

In short, there is no reason to debate with Dr. Bond; he is not himself interested in debate, as his rejection of valid criticism demonstrates. There is, however, good reason to expose him to the truthful scrutiny which he fears. If anyone learns to read his work with a critical eye instead of believing everything he says as gospel truth (as people like Pilger, Roy and Ali do), the Creator’s purpose in mentioning him will be justified. Since the Creator has discovered all that need be known about Dr. Bond, pardon the Creator for not wishing to mention him again for a long time.


4 Responses to A Brief Response to Dr. Patrick Bond. (And then, no more.)

  1. Patrick Bond says:

    I’ve never seen so many factual mistakes in one post, dear Shrieker.
    But this is because I never apply any technique of critical reading to my own work.
    Otherwise I would have to correct the falsehoods and misreadings in my own work, and then I would not have very much left to say.
    I don’t do this partly because I am not competent to do this, and partly because I don’t care about the truth.
    What I care about is bolstering my own self-importance, which is why I devote so much time to bullying the author of an unimportant weblog.
    Also I am not accustomed to responding any kind of criticism because neither the neoliberal media nor the dilettante leftists for whom I write ever question what I say.
    I am therefore a charlatan who gets away with charlatanry by exploiting the circumstances of South African politics, and I make a lot of money out of this and live well.
    I am not at all embarrassed to be clogging the weblog of someone more interested in the truth than I am, with surly accusations of factual inaccuracy and shoddy research, when anyone who actually knows my own work knows that for me to make such accusations is a kind of magic realism.
    After all, I cannot handle competition any more than I can handle criticism.
    It seems that I am going to keep trying to post garbage on this weblog, despite the obvious fact that I am unwelcome to do so, until I get bored, because I have virtually nothing better to do in my life.

  2. Robert Masondo says:

    I carry no candles for the ANC. But I do believe very firmly that the alternative will come from the masses. Dr. Bond on the other hand believes that it will come from himself and white European NGOs like Action Aid! This is not leftism, it is imperialism! The good whites will save the people from the bad black government!

    The way in which Bond & Co. exploit and misrepresent and intimidate organs of people’s power is very well known. For example see the statements below. It is no surprise that people’s movements have refused to work with his Centre of Civil Society. It is also no surprise that he hounded out all the staff members that believe in the masses and that both the African staff members laid formal charges of racism against him.

    There can be no place for a leftism that sees NGOs that front for foriegn governments and not the African masses as the road to socialism.

    Lynn Mumsammy we have heard you.

    Forward to a real people’s struggle in the hands of the people. Away with white academics that have no faith in the people and claim that white NGO’s from white countries will save Africa.


    Προσθήκη μετάφρασης >>

    South African Grassroots Movements Rebel Against NGO Authoritarianism
    Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign 09 Dec 2007 14:01 GMT

    This is a disturbing example of grassroots peoples’ groups having to declare independence from NGO-controlled coalitions because they feel the NGO’s, with their overseas funding here Rosa Luxembourg Foundation)and staff available, pre-empt the leadership of movements, and water down the demands of the people. There was a similar statement last week from Abahlali base Mjondolo in Natal to disavow others who were organizing peoples’ groups with major support from the Gates foundation. See John Saul review of Shivji’s book on the role of Ngo’s: http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=16470 . Shivji emphasizes the authenticity of the peoples movements over the NGOs’, and notes their `silence’(except for Lawyers Environmental Action Team-LEAT) when it came to support for the artisinal miners at Bulyanhulu. The acronym CBO or even CSO (civil society organisation) may come to be preferred by peoples’ groups to NGO.


    An open letter to participants in the Social Movements Indaba

    The Western Cape Anti Eviction Campaign wishes to make clear to all social movements and participants in the Social Movements Indaba that its representatives will not be attending the SMI to be held in Cape Town from 2-5 December 2007. We have seen the “Planned Agenda” and want to make absolutely clear that we did not give the SMI leadership permission to cite our name as participants. We reject the dishonesty of the SMI leadership in this regard with the utmost contempt. Our inclusion as participants will mislead other social movements throughout South Africa, Africa and internationally. It also will mislead funders such as the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation who have partly financed this gathering of the SMI

    One of our constituencies has indicated the very same sentiment: the Joe Slovo Residents Association, also cited in the agenda as participants, will not be attending the SMI.

    The Western Cape Anti Eviction Campaign was a founder member of the Social Movement Indaba in its original intention to be a platform for social movements. In its ranks it concentrates the experience of most of the mass struggles in the Western Cape since that time: in Mandela Park, Tafelsig, Silvertown, QQ section, Gugulethu, Hanover Park, Gympie Street and so on.

    But since its inception the SMI has degenerated into a vehicle controlled by NGOs. Now it merely poses as a forum for bringing together social movements. In reality the SMI has become an obstacle to the linking up of real social movements around the country and is a source of division.

    The Western Cape Anti Eviction Campaign will not allow some NGO’s and academics to further their careers with the blood, sweat and tears of communities. We despise the way they act as Trojan horses and the way they co‑opt activists because of the resources they enjoy. Major social movements such as Abahlali base Mjondolo in Natal and the WCAEC withdrew from the SMI a year ago because it no longer fulfilled its original function. The SMI needs to be reclaimed and driven by people on the ground and not by its self-appointed ‘leaders’.

    Let us compare the record of the SMI in the Western Cape in 2007 with that of the AEC. With far less resources than the Western Cape SMI, the AEC has done the following:
    (1) As a result of years of campaigning under the leadership of the AEC, by ten villages with defective housing managed by the Cape Town Community Housing Company, the government allocated R46 million to repair the defects.
    (2) As a result of the AEC’s ‘scrap the arrears’ campaign (directed against the pink letters issued by the Cape Town Council), the Council agreed to scrap arrears up to September 2003. This was a partial victory.
    (3) The AEC has been involved in helping organise marches of thousands of people on parliament by N2 Gateway residents and by Joe Slovo settlement residents, worked with Joe Slovo on the occupation of the N2, and has also cooperated with the Joe Slovo task team in working out a strategy to fight the forced removal being attempted by Sisulu, Dyantyi and Thubelisha. This has thus far won a reprieve until the High Court hearing on 12 December.

    All this is in addition to regular assistance by the AEC of individuals and small groups with struggles against evictions.

    What has the Western Cape SMI done in 2007? So far as we know, it has only organized one small demonstration at parliament of some 50-80 people! There has not even been an SMI presence at the court appearances in Bishop Lavis of 8 Joe Slovo militants on charges of public violence. This shows the extent to which the bureaucracy of the SMI has lost touch with community-based organizations.

    We invite all representatives of genuine social movements – provincial, national and international — attending the SMI conference to join residents of Joe Slovo and members of the Anti-Eviction campaign in showing our solidarity with the 8 Joe Slovo militants at their next court appearance in Bishop Lavis at 9am on December 5.

    Issued by the Western Cape Anti Eviction Campaign
    079 370 9614;
    078 580 8646;
    073 256 20336;
    072 392 5859;
    073 144
    3619; 076 186 1408*

    Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign

    e-mail:: wcantieviction@gmail.com

    Προσθήκη σχολίου σε αυτό το άρθρο
    Lynn Munsammy’s Statement Against NGO Thuggery

    Lynn Munsammy 08.Mar.2008 11:22

    Lynn Munsamy was a founder member of the Crossmoor Informal Settlement in Chatsworth and she was elected onto the Crossmoor Committee where she played a leading role. This is the statement that she made after 3 staff members (Heinrich Boemke, Shannon Walsh & Orlean Naidoo) at the Centre for Civil Society sent around emails accusing her and others of stealing money. This followed:

    1. A letter from Lynn on behalf of the Crossmooor Committee to the Crossmoor Lawyers (LRC) asking them to please deal directly with the Crossmoor Committee and not with the Centre for Civil Society, to please not arrange meetings at times and venues unsuitable for Crossmoor residents, to please keep the Crossmoor Committee rather than the Centre for Civil Society updated with the progress on the case, to please give a written explanation to the Committee with regard to the role of two Centre for Civil Society staff members (Heinrich Boemke and Orlean Naidoo) in the case and stating that Fatima Meer was not a stakeholder in Crossmoor.
    2. Lynn asking when, why and how Orlean and her husband took the leadership of Crossmoor from the elected committee.
    3. An email from Lynn to the CCS listserve asking that all CCS staff including interns, outreach officers, visitors and film makers to please stop coming to Crossmore and that they stop presenting Orlean Naidoo (employed by CCS and resident in Malvern) as the leader of the Crossmore settlement.
    4. The replacement, by the Centre for Civil Society, of the elected Crossmoor Committee with a new Committee. Because this was done with violence and undemocratically the Social Movement’s Indaba KwaZulu-Natal [SMI-KZ] described this action as ‘regime change’.
    5. Threats against people in and out of Crossmoor who spoke out against this regime change.

    Crossmoor Statement from Lynn Munsamy

    On the 26 June 2007 I went for a march that was organized by Orlean and Fundis [with money from CCS]. The march went peacefully, until the latter end when a comrade asked a question and before answering Pinkie (Orlean’s husband) lashed out verbally at me, (“shut up, you are a piece of shit, you are a nothing”). He also stated that he would set Fundis people for me. This was embrassing and humiliating. I decided at this point to maintain a safe distance from Orlean and Pinkie as I believed that they were a threat to my safety. However this does not mean that I withdrew my participation in the Crossmoor Struggle.

    On the morning of 4 July 2007, Pinkie confronted Joyce telling that the bottom section was small in numbers and that she should get more people from the Bottlebrush Settlement to build shacks and increase the numbers. I was concerned about this and I told her that I would confer with the lawyers on this matter. Pinkie then became upset with my decision, saying that I did not know what I was talking about.

    An hour later the protection service came and broke down shacks. I contacted our lawyer and he sent someone to take photos. The next morning I took 3 people to meet with the lawyer, Orlean became upset that I made my own arrangements. On this very day 5 July Orlean called a meeting. This meeting was held at Westcliffe, Unit 3 [where Orlean and Pinkie have a flat i.e. not in the informal settlement]. All persons that attended this meeting as ff:

    1. Heindrich (chair the meeting) [CCS]
    2. Shannon Walsh [CCS]
    3. Orlean (Westcliffe Chairperson) and Pinkie [CCS]
    3 members from the Westcliff Flat Resident’s Committee, Gladys, Christina, Vanessa
    5 members from Ekhupelene incl Fundis (Leader)
    Crossmoor: Lyn, Evon, Robert, Sipho, Busisiwe, Rani, Grace, Brilliance, Octavia, Channel

    This was a rushed meeting. There was a few concerns that was bought up.

    1. Fundis threats against the bottom section.
    2. Change of name (Fundi’s concern)
    3. Funding issues
    4. Who are the leaders, who should lead

    The issue concerning the [alleged] misappropriation of funds was brought up. Fundis also brought his concern that there were blankets and food hampers that was stored at a Pastor’s garage. Heinsrich then said that we should be honest about this issued. I indicated that donations came in to about R7000. I also explained that this was given at various times. I indicated further that I have all records available to provide proof thereof. The conclusion to the meeting was that Evon and myself should step back on the basis that I, Lynn, is not well and that Evon being stressed out. I never consulted with Heindsrich on this matter. However I speak to him about meeting personally through SMS. My reason for this was that I wanted to get money advice dealing with the Money Issue. HE did not respond, but discussed this sms with Orlean. THE SMS READ, AIR TIME JUST GOT FINISHED PLEASE LET ME KNOW OF TIME N DATE AT UR CONVENIENCE PLEASE DNT DISCUSS MEETING WITH ORLEAN FOR NOW. Orlean was very upset about this. My reason for this sms was no concern of hers. Orlean openly discussed this sms with the community ranting and raving. I tried to explain to her but she took no understanding.

    On 6 July 2007 Orlean brought out the issue of me being distant. I indicated to her that Pinkie needed to apologise to me and that the apology should not come from her on his behalf. Pinkie was present at the time. He uttered these painful humiliating words, (“fuck you, you are a piece of shit, you are a nothing”) in front of the Crossmoor Community. He then shouted (“this things here stole R7000”).

    The next day we were all sitting around a fire and Orlean arrived whilst on her cell with Comrade Roy [SMI-KZN]. She was screaming and shouting that the community all stood to listen to her conversation. After that she interrupted the peace by brining up the previous days issues regarding the mismanagement of funds. I then spoke out that enough is enough. She became extremely angry whilst Pinky shouted to the people (everyone Lyn wants us to go away) Orlean then yelled at me and said “I will never leave Crossmoor.” The situation became very intense so a comrade took me away so that things cooled down. I then called her on my cell, to my surprise she swore me (“fuck you Lyn”). After this incident I decided to avoid all contact with Orlean and Pinkie.

    A committee was elected on 9 July 2007. The election was done because Heinsrich adviced that we, should add on to form a committee with at least 6 members (this was mentioned at a pervious meeting). I called a meeting with the community and allowedthe community to nominate and second the election. To my knowledge the community was HAPPY with the election. I also asked if the community was happy with Evon and myself. The people were excited and shouted YES. The community wanted us to be part of the committee. The people were all excited they all clapped and cheered that night. Orlean and Pinkie arrived the next morning found that Crossmoor has a new committee. She was upset and said that she was leaving. People became confused and depressed. They were left with no choice it was either me (lynn) or Orlean. Now that’s the part I did not understand because she is from the outside and given the fact that Orelan is the CHAIRPERSON OF WESTCLIFF [Flat resident’s assoc.] She has also made numerous threats that she brought the RESOURCES (e.g CCS, LRC, the lawyer, SMI )to Crossmoor and that she would take them away [if she was not the leader].

    On 21 July 2007 Orlean called a meeting. Heinrich and Shannon was invited to this meeting. Evon and I was not invited fir this meeting (but heard rumours of it). Heinsrich conducted this meeting for a new committee. I raised the concern that there is already a committee in place and members of the committee did not resign, so therefore it was inappropriate for Heinrich to be conducting an election of committee members. He did agree that it was a good point bought forward. Orlean then interrupted and insisted that a new committee be in place. When I raised the concern about RAF CLAIMS (ROAD ACCIDENT FUNDS). According to me knowledge none of the people was involved in an accident. When I raised my concerns on this issue Orlean became violently aggressive and slapped me across my face. I retaliated immediately by slapping her back. Pinky stormed through the crowd with a knife in his hands and said “I WILL KILL YOU.” A few members of the community rushed me to safety. I was emotionally traumatized and physically drained by this so I left the settlement. The reason that I mentioned the RAF CLAIM, two people from the community confronted me scared that they had done wrong. I was shocked and disappointed about this.

    On the 23 July 2007 I received threatening phone class that if I set foot on the settlement I would be severely dealt with, from that day I kept away from the settlement due to the undue provocation and threat to my life.

    On 25 July 2007 Orlean spoke to community and alleged that it was through me (Lynn) that the article in the Post dated 25 July 2007 was due to my interaction with [Deputy Mayor] Logie Naidoo. However this was not true as I had not met with him or spoken to him. The community became highly aggrieved after Orlean had discussed the post article. This had led them protesting in front of my mother-in-laws home where I have temporary accommodation demanding answers to the post article and money issued. I did explain to them that I had no knowledge of the post issue.

    She says in one of her emails that my words “Breyani Politics” coinsides with Rassool’s email [Rasool Snyman, SMI KZN]. It must be brought to her attention that one of the sponsors present used these words saying that Orlean is caught up in Breyani Politics, I did agree with and reiterated these words. This is undershanded and a gross injustice because the people are aware of her true intentions subtle manipulation seems to be her TACTICAL APPROACH.

    My belief is that Orlean must provide proof of misappropriation of funds if she wishes to speculate about this issue. The constant speculation of money is just an excuse on her part to lobby for LEADERSHIP in the community – nor has sheen been in the struggle at its conception. She only became involved since March 2007. She lives in Malvern in an extravagant home and she should leave Crossmoor to deal with their own issues.

    After close retrospection I have to the understanding that my arduous efforts have come to nought as it is clearly evident that people had been swayed by Orlean and are no longer appreciative of my efforts. I must emphasize that I have always had the community effors at heart and I have been 100% committed to the struggle for the past year – and would have continued to do so were it not for Orleans false ACCUSATIONS and SPECULATIONS and the INAPPROPRIATE MANNER in which they conduct themselves.

    This has brought much pain and trauma to my family and my belief is that no one deserves to go through this kind of anguish.


  3. Eddy Variet says:

    Giving Patrick a good kicking is about to be a national sport, but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth when the one doing the kicking is too poep-scared to show her/his face – kinda makes us wonder what little grudges you’re harbouring but don’t want to show in public. If you want to take Patrick on, do it in your own name, face-to-face, with a teenie little bit of respect.

  4. The Creator says:

    This is not “Patrick Bond Watch”, nor ever will be. Cde Masondo, please fight your battles, such as they
    are, elsewhere on the Web.

    Fast Eddie:
    1. Of 50 000 000 South Africans, probably 99.99% are unaware that Dr. Bond is alive. The notion that he is widely attacked is ludicrous. Get yourself a sense of proportion.
    2. The Creator owes Dr. Bond nothing, certainly not respect. If you, comrade, were less devoted to the political style of the pre-school playground you would be better qualified to address issues.

    In conclusion, somehow traffic has shot up in recent days. If this is because of this silly scuffle with Dr. Bond, can the Creator suggest that Dr. Bond is not really that important?

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: