Jump to content

How The Left’s War On Words Manipulates Your Mind


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member

Seems relevant considering some of the recent discussions.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/01/lefts-war-words-manipulates-mind/

Whether we are communicating something simple like a restaurant order or something complex like a tax code, we expect others to understand. Language provides an avenue to express shared meaning so humans can relate to one another. On college campuses, social media, and in the courts, this shared meaning is being destroyed. Through linguistic activism, leftists have begun a full-scale war on language, playing by their own set of constantly shifting rules.

I don’t know when it started or with what word, but the modern American lexicon is changing faster than society can keep up. Any twentieth-century liberal who walked onto a college campus today would be more confused than the town drunk from Babel straggling into town the morning after a bender. Words can now literally be defined with their antonym. We are a hair’s width and an ounce of stupidity away from “war is peace, freedom is slavery.”

Word games take many forms, and honest people must call it out. At Prager University, Michael Knowles exposes this tactic and how it affects the culture. Underlying each tactic is misuse of words.

This isn’t innocent linguistic drift or slang; it is a conscious effort to reshape society. The schemes include redefining words for personal gain, using modifiers to alter the meaning of a word, replacing technical words with colloquial ones, and creating new words. Each of these is a bullying tactic, which distort effective discourse.

What Do These Tactics Look Like?

It starts with misusing words or defining them based on circumstance rather than objective meaning. The entire purpose of defined language is to hold constant meaning so others can understand. Situational use starts to condition how people feel about words, building up a new connotation.

The classic example is the word “liberal,” which the far-left co-opted. It was adopted because of its positive connotation, and used as a cover for imposing greater leftist control under the guise of liberty. In reality, there is nothing liberal about failing to protect life, burdening individuals with regulations and taxes, or forcing individuals to provide services to others. This is no accidental misnomer, but strategic messaging to influence people. Who doesn’t want to support a policy that is “progressive,” “pro-choice,” or “affordable”?

When the word cannot be flipped, other words are sometimes added to suggest a new meaning. In the case of firearms, the new popular phrase is “assault rifle.” Webster’s Dictionary was happy to update its definitionto help nudge society in the right direction. The effect is a stronger connotation, which plays on people’s emotion and visceral reactions to the phrase.

Tinkering with language and misusing words results in opinion polls in which 92 percent of people support “universal background checks” without realizing that would prevent a friend or family member from selling or trading a gun privately. Modifiers that draw emotion can effectively shape new public policy based on feelings and not objective facts.

Following very closely is substituting words to suit the political narrative. The play here is almost always to swap out the legal or technical word for the connotation from casual conversation. While “assault rifle” is one example, a more explosive one is “terrorism.”

The word has a legal definition, which is anchored in the actors’ beliefs and intentions, not others’ outcomes or perceptions. In general conversation, however, it simply means something causing terror or great violence. A crowd of leftists will cry foul when a white male is not immediately labeled a terrorist following any abhorrent crime before facts are known.

This tactic combines several others, because it suggests that Republicans and conservatives are selectively using the term against Islamist extremists. Except that many on the Right were quick to label the Charleston shooter a domestic terrorist, and while the motive of the recent Las Vegas shooter remains unknown, conservatives labeled him with nuance from the available information.

In reality, this is a sleight of hand, because it is the leftist selectively labeling. Violent and excessive killing does not become terrorism because a leftist feels it should be labeled such.

Social media outrage is not the worst effect of this definition swap. Former FBI director James Comey infamously reframed the Hillary Clinton investigation by referring to it as a “matter.” When it is convenient, activists drop technical language and improperly replace it with imprecise and milder words. This shouldn’t fool anyone, and deserves a forceful rebuttal.

Another sleight of hand is the phrase “undocumented immigrant” in place of “illegal alien.” The rallying cry is that “no person is illegal.” But of course “illegal” refers to the action and status, not the personhood of the individual, and “alien” is the technical term for a foreign citizen.

Sen. Kamala Harris pushed this tactic further, in a 2017 tweet saying, “An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” The problem is that, by definition, to be an undocumented immigrant is necessarily to break a law. These word games are not just misleading, they’re often blatant lies.

Wholly disassociating words from their accepted meaning opened an entirely new realm of possibility for leftists. By separating gender from sex, linguistic activists tore the very fabric of mutual understanding, and created a new class of victims, and by definition, a new class of offenders. Pronouns, the simplest way to identify another party, are now subject to feelings.

Defining words on subjective views defeats the purpose of language, because it creates an endless guessing game, and empowers the other party to choose when to reward and when to punish the speaker. By sabotaging the accepted unity of sex and gender, dozens of new pronouns sprang into existence.

New words do not harm discourse, unless they are thrust upon people and enforced through speech codes. Controlling how people speak is the implicit goal of this movement, which combined with anti-hate-speech activism seeks to empower the Left as the arbiters of morality and to punish those who wrongfully use language—ironically, achieved by abusing language themselves.

Why Is This So Important?

The Left does not have to rely on judicial activism when it can brainwash an entire population by changing how they think of and describe policy. A whole generation raised to think that “well-regulated” means the same thing as “government-inspected and -approved” can destroy the Second Amendment.

If they are unbound from the public meaning of words, they are no better than tyrants acting on subjective whim.

Words do change meaning over time, which is why this issue is so important. The judicial philosophies of originalism and textualism emphasize the importance of words, because they convey valuable meaning. The importance of these philosophies, however, is that they rely on what words meant to the public when they were used. To impose the current leftist linguistic strategy would mean that over time, laws do not need to change if the words in those laws can simply evolve meaning.

In reality, a statute’s meaning is frozen with the public meaning of the words when it passed. It is essential to critically evaluate what words mean and the context in which they are used.

When colloquial words are improperly elevated, and legal and technical words are degraded to irrelevance, the interpreter is the only arbiter of meaning. Judges already hold this trust, but if they are unbound from the public meaning of words, they are no better than tyrants acting on subjective whim.

The righteous aim of the American experiment was to create a nation of laws, not of men. Today, written law is not supreme, because words themselves are decaying. Judges can decide on meaning, politicians can misuse words with abandon, and activists can weaponize linguistic drift to brainwash uneducated voters.

The pen is truly mightier than the sword. The power to influence language is the power to create and destroy, and it must be checked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

Another.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/why_must_words_mean_whatever_liberals_want_them_to_mean_.html

First the liberals changed the history of race relations and civil rights in this country.  Now they're changing the meaning of words.

When did we start changing the meaning of words that have been in use for perhaps hundreds of years to give them racial meanings?

Recently, Soledad O'Brien, who seems to be trying desperately to remain relevant since her show on CNN was canceled, appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources.  According to the Huffington Post, O'Brien said that "the word 'thug' has become the new N-word, and journalists need to think twice before using the term to describe protesters in Baltimore."  Protestors?  The people in Baltimore who injured 100 police officers and burned over 200 stores and countless cars were not by any stretch of the imagination "protestors."  A protestor is (according to the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary) "someone who disagrees with something by standing somewhere, shouting, carrying signs, etc." 

The word "thug" derives from the archaic Indian word "Thugee."  According to the Oxford Dictionaries, a thug or thugee is "a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s."  Since then, also according to the Oxford Dictionaries, the term has come to mean "a violent person, especially a criminal."  Synonyms include ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal, tough, bruiser, hood, and others.  It seems like a perfect word to describe the people who caused so much destruction in Baltimore.  O'Brien also made it sound as though no white person has ever been described as a thug.

Niggardly has also appeared recently as being seen as a racial slur.  According to Merriam-Webster, the first usage of the word was in 1571, long before the "N-word" was even imagined.  It's a good word and means "grudgingly mean about spending or granting."  Synonyms include cheap, chintzy, closefisted, mean, miserly, stingy, parsimonious, tightfisted, and others.  Not one racial reference in any of the dictionaries I searched.  I've used it and never given it a second thought, nor should anyone else.

The focus on trying to find racism in every word uttered is simply a smokescreen to divert from the real problem facing our country.  At 70, I have never seen this country so racially divided, and it's getting worse.    

Baltimore has been governed by liberals for about 50 years, and each year their situation gets worse.  Their schools are spending as much per student as Loyola High School, one of the top-rated high schools in the country. Yet the calls continue for more funding for the school system.  Throwing money at a problem is the liberal way, but it's rarely the solution. 

A hard look needs to be taken into why these liberal policies are failing so abysmally, not into the false meaning of words.  Correcting the damage 50 years of liberal governance has done to the black family and community is much more important than any word.      

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

—Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
15 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

They learned this tactic from right wing strategists like Luntz... FOH 

Sure they did.  :lol:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
9 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Words and definitions shouldn’t change? Or words and definitions should only change when it doesn’t hurt the R’s?

How does the definition of racism changing hurt the R's?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, Wildboer said:

 

Luntz literally wrote a book about it in 2007 dude...

Words that work wasn't about changing words meaning.   It was about correct choice of words.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Words that work wasn't about changing words meaning.   It was about correct choice of words.  

It's about redefining issues by manipulating language, spin that as you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
2 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

It's about redefining issues by manipulating language, spin that as you wish.

:lol:  Dude not even close to changing the known historical definitions of words.  GMAFB.  

 

Words that Work by Frank Luntz

Rating: 9/10

Read More on AmazonGet My Searchable Collection of 200+ Book Notes

High-Level Thoughts

One of the best books on speech and copywriting. It’ll take your awareness of political messaging to new heights, and give you a greater ability to influence others through your word choice alone.

Summary Notes

“It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. You can have the best message in the world, but the person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of his or her own emotions, preconceptions, prejudices, and preexisting beliefs.”

“Words that work, whether fiction or reality, not only explain but also motivate. They cause you to think as well as act. They trigger emotion as well as understanding.”

Ten rules for successful communication:

  1. Simplicty: Use small words
  2. Brevity: Use short sentences
  3. Credibility is as important as philosophy
  4. Consistency matters
  5. Novelty: Offer something news
  6. Sound and texture matters
  7. Speak aspirationally, people forget what you say but not how you made them feel
  8. Visualize, the word “imagine” is an incredibly powerful tool
  9. Ask a question, help them reach the point on their own
  10. Provide context and explain relevance

“These, then, are the ten rules of effective communication, all summarized in single words: simplicity, brevity, credibility, consistency, novelty, sound, aspiration, visualization, questioning, and context. If your tagline, slogan, or message meets most of these criteria, chances are it will meet with success. If it meets all ten, it has a shot at being a home run. But in the history of political verbiage and product marketing, less than one in one thousand hit it out of the park. ”

“The single greatest challenge for those in the world of politics is the inherent assumption that everyone else knows as much as they do.”

“The problem with far too many male politicians and executives is that they tend to make everything into a sports analogy. In my years of interviewing women from all across the country and in all walks of life, I’ve consistently found that this drives women insane.”

“Law enforcement is the process, and therefore less popular, while reducing crime is the desirable result. The language lesson: Focus on results, not process.”

“Orwell also lays out a series of language rules. Every one of them is sound writing advice, whether you’re looking for your first job or you’ve already reached the pinnacle of corporate or political success:

  1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
  2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
  3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
  4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
  5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
  6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”

“We have also found that Americans would prefer greater energy efficiency to increased conservation because “efficiency” suggests getting more for less while “conservation” has a tone of sacrifice to it. For that same reason, “renewable” energy is more popular than “alternative” energy.”

Negotiation: ““Imagine if . . .” are the two most effective words you can use in this situation. “Imagine if I hadn’t been here to work on Project X.” “Imagine if Contract Y hadn’t been hammered out last week.””

“In my research into the effectiveness of direct mail, the single most-read portion after the opening paragraph is the postscript. The reason is easy to understand: The average reader looks to the P.S. to determine whether or not it is in fact a personal letter, and whether that letter has any relevance to his or her life. If it isn’t, and if it doesn’t, the average person won’t read anything else. So make the postscript as human and emotional as possible.”

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Highmark said:

:lol:  Dude not even close to changing the known historical definitions of words.  GMAFB.  

 

Words that Work by Frank Luntz

Rating: 9/10

Read More on AmazonGet My Searchable Collection of 200+ Book Notes

High-Level Thoughts

One of the best books on speech and copywriting. It’ll take your awareness of political messaging to new heights, and give you a greater ability to influence others through your word choice alone.

Summary Notes

“It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. You can have the best message in the world, but the person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of his or her own emotions, preconceptions, prejudices, and preexisting beliefs.”

“Words that work, whether fiction or reality, not only explain but also motivate. They cause you to think as well as act. They trigger emotion as well as understanding.”

Ten rules for successful communication:

  1. Simplicty: Use small words
  2. Brevity: Use short sentences
  3. Credibility is as important as philosophy
  4. Consistency matters
  5. Novelty: Offer something news
  6. Sound and texture matters
  7. Speak aspirationally, people forget what you say but not how you made them feel
  8. Visualize, the word “imagine” is an incredibly powerful tool
  9. Ask a question, help them reach the point on their own
  10. Provide context and explain relevance

“These, then, are the ten rules of effective communication, all summarized in single words: simplicity, brevity, credibility, consistency, novelty, sound, aspiration, visualization, questioning, and context. If your tagline, slogan, or message meets most of these criteria, chances are it will meet with success. If it meets all ten, it has a shot at being a home run. But in the history of political verbiage and product marketing, less than one in one thousand hit it out of the park. ”

“The single greatest challenge for those in the world of politics is the inherent assumption that everyone else knows as much as they do.”

“The problem with far too many male politicians and executives is that they tend to make everything into a sports analogy. In my years of interviewing women from all across the country and in all walks of life, I’ve consistently found that this drives women insane.”

“Law enforcement is the process, and therefore less popular, while reducing crime is the desirable result. The language lesson: Focus on results, not process.”

“Orwell also lays out a series of language rules. Every one of them is sound writing advice, whether you’re looking for your first job or you’ve already reached the pinnacle of corporate or political success:

  1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
  2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
  3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
  4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
  5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
  6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”

“We have also found that Americans would prefer greater energy efficiency to increased conservation because “efficiency” suggests getting more for less while “conservation” has a tone of sacrifice to it. For that same reason, “renewable” energy is more popular than “alternative” energy.”

Negotiation: ““Imagine if . . .” are the two most effective words you can use in this situation. “Imagine if I hadn’t been here to work on Project X.” “Imagine if Contract Y hadn’t been hammered out last week.””

“In my research into the effectiveness of direct mail, the single most-read portion after the opening paragraph is the postscript. The reason is easy to understand: The average reader looks to the P.S. to determine whether or not it is in fact a personal letter, and whether that letter has any relevance to his or her life. If it isn’t, and if it doesn’t, the average person won’t read anything else. So make the postscript as human and emotional as possible.”

That's not how I choose to define his work :news:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
Just now, Wildboer said:

That's not how I choose to define his work :news:

Can you give a specific example from the book about manipulating or changing the common meaning of a word?  

It might involving changing a phrase but not the meaning of a word entirely.  Estate tax to death tax.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Can you give a specific example from the book about manipulating or changing the common meaning of a word?  

It might involving changing a phrase but not the meaning of a word entirely.  Estate tax to death tax.  

You're hung up on changing the definition of a word. Luntz changed the definition of an issue by using misleading words to define it. It's a different style of verbal manipulation, the goal is the same though, mislead people with word games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
Just now, Wildboer said:

You're hung up on changing the definition of a word. Luntz changed the definition of an issue by using misleading words to define it. It's a different style of verbal manipulation, the goal is the same though, mislead people with word games.

Agree to disagree.  :bc:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
6 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

I believe agree and disagree mean the same thing so that works for me :bc: 

You go ahead and think that son.  :lol:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

 

Luntz literally wrote a book about it in 2007 dude...

If you watch the movie Vice it has a brief part in there where they show him doing that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Highmark said:

Seems relevant considering some of the recent discussions.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/01/lefts-war-words-manipulates-mind/

Whether we are communicating something simple like a restaurant order or something complex like a tax code, we expect others to understand. Language provides an avenue to express shared meaning so humans can relate to one another. On college campuses, social media, and in the courts, this shared meaning is being destroyed. Through linguistic activism, leftists have begun a full-scale war on language, playing by their own set of constantly shifting rules.

I don’t know when it started or with what word, but the modern American lexicon is changing faster than society can keep up. Any twentieth-century liberal who walked onto a college campus today would be more confused than the town drunk from Babel straggling into town the morning after a bender. Words can now literally be defined with their antonym. We are a hair’s width and an ounce of stupidity away from “war is peace, freedom is slavery.”

Word games take many forms, and honest people must call it out. At Prager University, Michael Knowles exposes this tactic and how it affects the culture. Underlying each tactic is misuse of words.

This isn’t innocent linguistic drift or slang; it is a conscious effort to reshape society. The schemes include redefining words for personal gain, using modifiers to alter the meaning of a word, replacing technical words with colloquial ones, and creating new words. Each of these is a bullying tactic, which distort effective discourse.

What Do These Tactics Look Like?

It starts with misusing words or defining them based on circumstance rather than objective meaning. The entire purpose of defined language is to hold constant meaning so others can understand. Situational use starts to condition how people feel about words, building up a new connotation.

The classic example is the word “liberal,” which the far-left co-opted. It was adopted because of its positive connotation, and used as a cover for imposing greater leftist control under the guise of liberty. In reality, there is nothing liberal about failing to protect life, burdening individuals with regulations and taxes, or forcing individuals to provide services to others. This is no accidental misnomer, but strategic messaging to influence people. Who doesn’t want to support a policy that is “progressive,” “pro-choice,” or “affordable”?

When the word cannot be flipped, other words are sometimes added to suggest a new meaning. In the case of firearms, the new popular phrase is “assault rifle.” Webster’s Dictionary was happy to update its definitionto help nudge society in the right direction. The effect is a stronger connotation, which plays on people’s emotion and visceral reactions to the phrase.

Tinkering with language and misusing words results in opinion polls in which 92 percent of people support “universal background checks” without realizing that would prevent a friend or family member from selling or trading a gun privately. Modifiers that draw emotion can effectively shape new public policy based on feelings and not objective facts.

Following very closely is substituting words to suit the political narrative. The play here is almost always to swap out the legal or technical word for the connotation from casual conversation. While “assault rifle” is one example, a more explosive one is “terrorism.”

The word has a legal definition, which is anchored in the actors’ beliefs and intentions, not others’ outcomes or perceptions. In general conversation, however, it simply means something causing terror or great violence. A crowd of leftists will cry foul when a white male is not immediately labeled a terrorist following any abhorrent crime before facts are known.

This tactic combines several others, because it suggests that Republicans and conservatives are selectively using the term against Islamist extremists. Except that many on the Right were quick to label the Charleston shooter a domestic terrorist, and while the motive of the recent Las Vegas shooter remains unknown, conservatives labeled him with nuance from the available information.

In reality, this is a sleight of hand, because it is the leftist selectively labeling. Violent and excessive killing does not become terrorism because a leftist feels it should be labeled such.

Social media outrage is not the worst effect of this definition swap. Former FBI director James Comey infamously reframed the Hillary Clinton investigation by referring to it as a “matter.” When it is convenient, activists drop technical language and improperly replace it with imprecise and milder words. This shouldn’t fool anyone, and deserves a forceful rebuttal.

Another sleight of hand is the phrase “undocumented immigrant” in place of “illegal alien.” The rallying cry is that “no person is illegal.” But of course “illegal” refers to the action and status, not the personhood of the individual, and “alien” is the technical term for a foreign citizen.

Sen. Kamala Harris pushed this tactic further, in a 2017 tweet saying, “An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” The problem is that, by definition, to be an undocumented immigrant is necessarily to break a law. These word games are not just misleading, they’re often blatant lies.

Wholly disassociating words from their accepted meaning opened an entirely new realm of possibility for leftists. By separating gender from sex, linguistic activists tore the very fabric of mutual understanding, and created a new class of victims, and by definition, a new class of offenders. Pronouns, the simplest way to identify another party, are now subject to feelings.

Defining words on subjective views defeats the purpose of language, because it creates an endless guessing game, and empowers the other party to choose when to reward and when to punish the speaker. By sabotaging the accepted unity of sex and gender, dozens of new pronouns sprang into existence.

New words do not harm discourse, unless they are thrust upon people and enforced through speech codes. Controlling how people speak is the implicit goal of this movement, which combined with anti-hate-speech activism seeks to empower the Left as the arbiters of morality and to punish those who wrongfully use language—ironically, achieved by abusing language themselves.

Why Is This So Important?

The Left does not have to rely on judicial activism when it can brainwash an entire population by changing how they think of and describe policy. A whole generation raised to think that “well-regulated” means the same thing as “government-inspected and -approved” can destroy the Second Amendment.

If they are unbound from the public meaning of words, they are no better than tyrants acting on subjective whim.

Words do change meaning over time, which is why this issue is so important. The judicial philosophies of originalism and textualism emphasize the importance of words, because they convey valuable meaning. The importance of these philosophies, however, is that they rely on what words meant to the public when they were used. To impose the current leftist linguistic strategy would mean that over time, laws do not need to change if the words in those laws can simply evolve meaning.

In reality, a statute’s meaning is frozen with the public meaning of the words when it passed. It is essential to critically evaluate what words mean and the context in which they are used.

When colloquial words are improperly elevated, and legal and technical words are degraded to irrelevance, the interpreter is the only arbiter of meaning. Judges already hold this trust, but if they are unbound from the public meaning of words, they are no better than tyrants acting on subjective whim.

The righteous aim of the American experiment was to create a nation of laws, not of men. Today, written law is not supreme, because words themselves are decaying. Judges can decide on meaning, politicians can misuse words with abandon, and activists can weaponize linguistic drift to brainwash uneducated voters.

The pen is truly mightier than the sword. The power to influence language is the power to create and destroy, and it must be checked.

:lol:  mind control. 

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...