The flag is symbolic, imperialism is real

Victoria university members of the Workers Party are facing charges of serious misconduct after burning the New Zealand flag. This leaflet explains the political background to the act.

Why burn the New Zealand flag?

The New Zealand flag is a symbol of imperialism. This is most obvious in its design, a tribute to the British Empire. This design was adopted after the Second Boer War, which devastated South Africa but resulted in a surge of Kiwi patriotism.

Lest we forget

Lest we forget

A simple re-design, while reflecting our emergence from the shadow of the British Empire, would not change the imperialist nature of the flag. It’s a tool of the ruling class, inseparably linked with militarism. From the Boer War through WWI and II, right through to armed involvement in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the flag has marked New Zealand’s presence. Flags mark military conquest, the subjugation of nations.

Flags and borders divide the working majority. ANZAC soldiers had more in common with their Turkish counterparts than with the bureaucrats who sent them to Gallipoli. The working majority has interests in common worldwide, including an end to imperial war. Ruling class nationalism is a barrier to recognising this.

What purpose does ANZAC day serve?

Kevin Rudd used ANZAC Day to facilitate a new ANZAC Task Force.

Kevin Rudd used ANZAC Day to facilitate a new ANZAC Task Force.

 

Many argue that ANZAC Day is not a glorification of war, but a commemoration of those who’ve lost their lives. However, the rhetoric of ANZAC Day does not simply honour the soldiers who lost their lives, it justifies those who sent them to die. This facilitates moves such as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s decision to form a new ANZAC Task Force.

Every year we are told that the young men whose lives were snuffed out at Gallipoli died gloriously for our freedom. We are told that the liberties we enjoy in New Zealand today exist only because of the sacrifice of these soldiers. The message is that the soldiers’ deaths were worth it, and that the cause they died for was just.

Gallipoli was not about defending democracy or free speech. The Ottoman Empire did not pose a threat New Zealand. The Allied High Command ordered the invasion of Gallipoli for strategic reasons, primarily opening a supply route to arm their then ally, the Tsar of Russia. This battle served ruling class British interests.

If we truly wished to avoid a repetition of these horrors, we would use Anzac Day to teach this basic truth: Do not believe what you’re told. Imperialist war is never glorious, and the soldiers who bled to death in the Belgian mud and at Galipolli died for nothing.

To honour the men who lost their lives, we must condemn imperialist war. Only when ANZAC Day facilitates disarmament and solidarity with those resisting imperialism, only when the War Memorial is showered with white poppies, when speeches are made about a generation of men slaughtered to serve imperialist interests, only then will the Workers Party support it.

Afghanis burning NZ flag.

Afghanis burning NZ flag.

 

 

New Zealand: an imperialist nation

While New Zealand has eked out a degree of independence from the US, it remains a junior imperialist nation. Contrary to popular myth, New Zealand was a member of the coalition of the willing which legitimised the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, sending troops to both countries.

Afghanistan is in the mess it is today because of Western involvement. Since the nineteenth century, Britain and the United States have deliberately stirred up communal divisions in the Middle East in a bid to prevent the formation of any united resistance to their plans for plundering the economic wealth of the region. During the Cold War, the CIA funded and recruited an army of Islamic mujahideen fighters based in northwest Pakistan to fight the Russians and their Afghan allies. Sectarian violence was exacerbated by this and by the subsequent occupation. The pro-Western government that replaced the Taliban has shown its stripes by legalizing rape within marriage. Yet the US and its NATO allies continue to peddle the line that the only solution to the worsening violence is greater Western military intervention.

Imperialism in the Pacific

More locally, we have treated Pacific neighbours as sources of cheap labour and trade, often interfering in governance.

While capital may flow freely across borders, workers only move when it suits the ruling class. When the post-war boom ended in the 1970s, the NZ ruling class turned to shutting off working class immigration, especially from the Pacific. 100,000 Samoans were stripped of citizenship rights, in a piece of legislation that has been maintained ever since. The Workers Party calls for open borders and full rights for migrant workers.

Despite the line of “democracy promotion” in the Pacific, the ruling class is primarily interested in having stable elites to trade with. In 2006, New Zealand and Australian troops were deployed to quell pro-democracy riots in Tonga. Only 9 of the 34 seats in the Tongan parliament are elected, and Tongans have voted for pro-democracy candidates in all 9 of those seats. However, New Zealand backs the monarchy, a major source of trade.

Yet paradoxically, New Zealand has isolated Fiji since the coup carried out by Bainamarama; why advocate democracy in Fiji and not Tonga? We did not isolate those who carried out the Fijian coups in 1987 and 2004. In fact, Fiji has never been a full democracy, with a voting system that entrenches a tribal elite, at the expense of Indo-Fijians. The current interim government however, is pledging to hold elections once there has been electoral reform, disestablishing the racially segregated voting system and instituting one person one vote. This may yet be shown to be empty rhetoric, indeed some of the actions of the interim government seem rather undemocratic and should be of concern, but New Zealand’s stance is clearly not based on democracy. There are powerful New Zealand interests in Fiji, which is New Zealand’s largest export market amongst the Pacific Islands. New Zealand’s attitude to Fiji is not based on humanitarian interests, but on the interests of capital.

*      *      *      *      *

Accompanying every justification of New Zealand militarism and imperialism is the national flag. It stands for unthinking obedience to orders and the false god of nationalism – the idea that working class New Zealanders share common interests with their bosses against the rest of the world.

Workers and all oppressed people of all countries , unite to resist imperialism.

38 Responses to The flag is symbolic, imperialism is real

  1. NZNLP says:

    The criminals who burned our flag should be hung for treason, ideally. The flag burning video shown on your website, as well as this very article, are insulting and degrading to war veterans, and all those who sacrificed their lives so we may live in freedom.

    You Socialists sicken me, purely because your ideology is based upon jealousy: Jealousy of those who have worked hard and succeeded in life. I know that any member of the Workers party would trade in their red flag for a mansion or a fancy sports car if they could, but until they win the lottery, they’ll just sit around protesting until they can legally steal money from those who have worked hard and earned something.

  2. Byron says:

    Did you read the article NZNLP?

  3. Joel says:

    I doubt it.

  4. person says:

    It[the flag]’s a tool of the ruling class, inseparably linked with militarism. ”

    I think you could say it is a symbol of nationalism, which is linked, of course, to militarism, but that takes away a lot of the other uses for the flag, such as sports events, which are similar to war, sure, but the flag does not only represent militarism. You’ve confused the links here.

  5. Neal Perry says:

    I’d just like to point out Joel has an iPhone. Although this gives us hope that the commies are moving into the 20th century (not quite 21st yet..) we still see them clinging to this out dated notion of imperialism. Seriously guys, over the past 20 years ANZAC day has changed its meaning. It isn’t—and to a certain extent—has never been about glorifying war.

    It also amuses me that you are ardently anti-war. EXCEPT when it is a war of liberation or some other such nonsense. The ends never justify the means. Violence is bad, and the violence shown in burning a flag is sickening to the people who are workers of this nation and who respect the sovereignty of our laws and government but who are happy to point out—in measured and reasonable ways—when the laws and government are wrong.

    THe workers’ party makes me ashamed to be a lefty.

    NP

  6. Don Franks says:

    I’d ask along with Byron, NZNLP, how about addressing our actual arguments?

    ps Rona Bailey managed to achieve possesion of a red flag and a fancy sports car!

  7. Asher says:

    Good on you guys for burning the flag and making it obvious why you did it.

    Well-articulated article; the university doesn’t really have a case!

  8. Jason Froch says:

    I would find Worker Party material more creditable if it didn’t overstate arguments so much.

    For instance, in regard to New Zealand’s imperialist role in the pacific the author writes, “Despite the line of “democracy promotion” in the Pacific, the ruling class is primarily interested in having STABLE ELITES to trade with.”

    You then cite Fiji where the NZ’s government, through isolation, is causing instability and certainly “harming” it’s trading relationship with that island.

    The argument that New Zealand’s primary concern in the pacific is trade relationships misguided. Because trade relationships in the Pacific are marginal to other trading partners I wouldn’t think this to be the primary concern of government. I believe New Zealand’s paramount concern in the pacific region IS stability as you suggested. But rather stability for the purpose of preventing failed states.

  9. martin says:

    ‘Flags mark military conquest, the subjugation of nations.’

    Really? Always? What about the Palestinian flag, the tino rangatiratanga flag, the flag of the local bowls club?

    Simplistic statements like this make readers disinclined to take you seriously.

    You don’t mention the most important imperialist wars NZ has been involved in - the wars at home. NZ swallowed several sovereign states in the nineteenth century. The Waikato Kingdom. Parihaka. Tuhoe Country. That’s what the flag mainly represents to many Maori opposed to it.

    What about imperialism inside NZ? Do you support potentially dismantling the NZ state by granting Tuhoe the right to decide whether to secede as they have repeatedly asked?

    • WP Admin says:

      “You don’t mention the most important imperialist wars NZ has been involved in – the wars at home.”

      We meant to discuss modern imperialism, an international phenomenon that kicked off early in the 20th century under the current flag; imperialism commemorated on ANZAC Day. While a lot of people recognise that colonialism did a lot of damage, modern imperialism is poorly understood.

      However, the Workers Party recognises that Maori were dispossessed of land, turning the great majority of Maori into wage-workers. This was “legitimised” by the Treaty of Waitangi, an imperialist document. More recently, a layer of Maori have been brought into the property-owning class through the settlement process, which leaves the great majority of Maori exploited. On that point we agree with Tuhoe, and on the right to sovereignty we don’t intend to stand in their way.

  10. joel says:

    //It also amuses me that you are ardently anti-war. EXCEPT when it is a war of liberation or some other such nonsense.//

    “Concerning nonviolence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.” Malcolm X

    A war of liberation or some other such nonsense? So we should leave the world as it is now and ignore history, the process that has led us to where we are now. The nation that strikes first gets to demand an end to violence with its conquests intact?

  11. Jason Frick says:

    “So we should leave the world as it is now and ignore history, the process that has led us to where we are now. The nation that strikes first gets to demand an end to violence with its conquests intact?”

    Assuming a war of liberation is the only way to redress past grievances? The framework you supply leaving only rebellion and the status quo is false. There are other options.

    And in any event, everyone has a grievance of some sort. What justifies resorting to violence and what does not?

  12. Neal Perry says:

    Oh wow Joel, you can use google to find quotes. I can too.

    “An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”

    “I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill.”

    “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”

    All those quotes are from Gandhi—a person who managed to free one of the largest nations with the biggest populations from true imperialism fairly non violently.

    There is never an excuse for violence. Go play on your iPhone.

  13. Don Franks says:

    We support dismantling the New Zealand state. In the developed process of that revolutionary struggle Tuhoe and all other dispossesed people will find more room to decide and control their own destiny.

  14. Don Franks says:

    “Gandhi has been regarded for twenty years by the Government of India as one of its right hand men. I know what I’m talking about-I used to be an officer in the Indian police. It was always admitted in the most cynical way that Gandhi made it easier for the British to rule India, because his influ­ence was always against taking any action that would make any difference.

    The reason why Gandhi when in prison is always treated with such lenience and small concessions sometimes made when he has prolonged one of his fasts to a dangerous extent, is that the British officials are in terror that he may die and be replaced by someone who believes less in “soul force ” and more in bombs.”

    So said George Orwell. For detailed historical facts about British imperialism in India, look up “Gandi and the Myth of Non Violence”, by Alec Kahn, on the Socialist Alternative website.

  15. WP Admin says:

    “Although this gives us hope that the commies are moving into the 20th century (not quite 21st yet..) we still see them clinging to this out dated notion of imperialism.”

    Imperialism was largely a 20th century development, replacing colonialism. Rather than directly governing foreign states, imperialist nations appropriate surplus from them. The guns come out when those nations try to go sovereign. As an example, compare and contrast Mugabe with Obiang of Equatorial Guinea - both brutal dictators, but Mugabe gets all the emphasis because he went sovereign, while Obiang continues to provide us with oil at an excellent rate.

    “STABLE ELITES… You then cite Fiji where the NZ’s government, through isolation, is causing instability and certainly “harming” it’s trading relationship with that island.”

    Dude, look into Fiji’s constitutional history. New Zealand has not isolated Fiji after coups backed by the tribal elite, which New Zealand has a strong trade relationship with. It has isolated Fiji after a coup hostile to that elite.

  16. Joel says:

    //All those quotes are from Gandhi—a person who managed to free one of the largest nations with the biggest populations from true imperialism fairly non violently.//

    So you don’t see that as a more general post-war situation that saw marked decolonisation as the western powers realised that there were more efficient ways of exploiting and controlling a country than with outright occupation? I.e. developing a local elite structure dependant on the west for development aid etc. Do you disagree on the role of the IMF and the World Bank that funnily enough came about at that time in tying countries in dependance to western capital?

    Ghandian non-violence worked and continued because the British state saw Ghandi and his followers as acceptable partners.

    Nelson Mandela? Good guy? You should read what he has to say about non-violent resistance against a state that doesn’t give a shit and has no interest at all in partnership. That’s right armed struggle and opposition in a number of forms.

  17. Barrie (AWSM-private capacity) says:

    “We support dismantling the New Zealand state”. As an anarchist I find that an intriguing statement. What exactly do you propose replacing the NZ state with?

  18. Don Franks says:

    I was following on from Martin’s comment about “potentially dismantling the NZ state”. We don’t see the destruction of the state as an academic exercise, but a future practical reality. There is no tidy detailed blueprint for this. The capitalist state will be replaced by those who finally overthrow it; with some form of cooperative society of their choosing.

  19. Paul Drake says:

    I would like to see a new flag, Hundervasser designed one with the Koru. The flag we have now looks too much like the Australian one,both of which harps back to our tired old homage to the British Empire. Isn’t it time we made a fresh start?

    I hate colonialism and empires I grew up in the Solomon Islands (in the sixties) and I know full well the British were not there for the benefit of the locals.

    As for Ghandi with a majority of about 400 million behind him as opposed to 150 thousand British he could afford passive resistance. If the demographics were reversed I am not convinced that passive resistance would work.

    I don’t mean to digress here but I would like to know the WP’s stand on the ‘super city’ of Auckland and the ever increasing power of local bodies.

    Cheers
    PD

  20. Barrie (AWSM-private capacity) says:

    Im in complete agreement with your response to my question Don. As it stands, its word-for-word what i would (and do) say myself. I’m curious therefore about the question of the means towards that shared end of a co-operative non-capitalist society. What is the role of a party such as yours in the transitional process and do you envisage the maintenance of a state in some form on the way to the “co-operative society”? I think some clarification of terms might be in order too, such as whether by “co-operative society” you mean communism (in the classical sense of a classless, stateless society with collective ownership of the means of production etc) or something else?

  21. Don Franks says:

    Hi Barrie
    that’s opening up a whole lot of big questions which need more than the bottom of a thread about ANZAC day to try and address. If you like email me at jill.don@paradise.net.nz and I’ll give you my take on it.
    There is also relevant stuff in the archives of this site,
    cheers,Don

  22. Barrie (AWSM-private capacity) says:

    Yeah agreed, theres a lot it opens up. I’ll try to get in touch soon.

  23. joel says:

    It’s important to clarify where people stand on these issues, as I’ve found that when arguing with a number of Anarchists, that we all hold distorted views of what the other group support and believe in… Clarity is handy.

  24. WP Admin says:

    Which goes wider than disagreements amongst revolutionaries. Outside the party, there’s a pretty thorough misunderstanding of the WP approach to democratic centralism.

  25. Paul Drake says:

    And of course NZNLP claims to be the spokesman for all war veterans! I know a few war veterans who would differ quite markedly from his narrow jingoistic stance. One would be Robert Browning?(Good Bye to All That)who later became a conscientious objecter Bertrand Russell was another, people with outatanding integrity and intellect.

    Yes I grieve for the poor lads who went out to the above mentioned wars, because they were conned!!!

    Neal Perry; “Violence is bad, and violence shown in burning the flag is sickening to the workers of this nation—- who respect the sovereignty of our laws etc. etc.”
    I would like to kmow who was hurt in the above exercise? It certainly wasn’t me, then maybe it was your misplaced chauvanistic pride and as for our national sovereignty well that was sold out in 1987, yes bY Roger Douglas with a little help from the Business Round Table and if the MAI got it’s way our industrial laws (regarding trans-nationals)would be imported from the WTO.

    So tell me Mr.Perry and Mr.NZNLP is that the sort of regime those lads of Gallipoli faught for?
    I very much doubt it!!!

    Cheers

    PD

  26. Paul Drake says:

    Just a small apology “Good Bye to all that” was written by Robert Graves. I have one of those strange memories that I can clearly remember most of the book but not the author.
    As I remember the book was mainly auto-biographical when he left school he joined the Royal Welsh Fusiliers and faught world war 1 on the Somme in the trenches and exposed to filfth, disease and mustard gas.
    He didn’t wish to fight another war and who could blame him.

  27. Patrick says:

    I found the burning of the flag to be an ill conceived publicity stunt which in no way will further the cause of the NZWP.

    I am not a nationalist and I think that most of the world’s problems today stem from first world imperialism.

    It sounds like Joel has a bit of growing up to do. Proverbially spitting in people’s faces doesn’t change people’s minds.

    This is one person who had sympathy for the NZWP who now no longer does. I look forward to further acts of juvenile grandstanding by NZWP members.

  28. Beastmahon says:

    I hope Joel and Alastair get reinstated. The universities’ response was way over the top.

    But one problem. The fight against fascism in the second world war had a different character than the other wars because it was a war against fascism.

    A peoples’ front was a necessary tactic for progressives to defeat fascism and this meant allying with Britain and the US. There was no practical alternative. Surely you realise this.

  29. Beastmahon says:

    And BTW, that NZNLP wanker should go and join the BNP if he wants to pursue his Enoch Powellesque fantasies.

    Hung for burning a flag? Where does he think he’s living? Saudi Arabia?

  30. John Edmundson says:

    There are things about WWII that make it different in some respects to WWI or other wars. But Britain did not go to war to “fight fascism”, it was fighting the Axis powers for control of global resources. The fight against fascism began in Spain and Britain had no desire to support the Republican government there. New Zealand joined that war not out of any desire to fight fascism but because “Where England goes we go”. New Zealand hitched its wagon to England’s star because English control of world markets meant a bigger market for New Zealand produce. It was partly the New Zealand government’s opinion that it was in the interests of New Zealand business, ie New Zealand capital, to be on England’s side in the war, and partly a residual blind allegiance to Britain that sent New Zealand soldiers off to war in WWII.
    Cheers,
    John

  31. Patrick says:

    That is a very cynical way of viewing the sacrifice that many New Zealander’s made.

    If everybody thought like that in 1939 then we would have lost WWII and be typing in Japanese.

  32. John Edmundson says:

    I don’t think so. In fact the idea that New Zealanders would have been typing in Japanese right now is a very relevant one. In WWII, The New Zealand government didn’t actually prioritise defence of New Zealand, unless you consider the Semple tank serious defence :-) The New Zealand army went to Greece, got beaten there doing Britain’s bidding, went to Crete, got beaten there doing Britain’s bidding, and spent the rest of the war fighting up and down North Africa and Italy doing Britain’s bidding. Only much later did a third (understrength) division get raised to fight in the Pacific. Of course the reality is that it wouldn’t have mattered what the New Zealand government had done. If Japan had wanted to invade New Zealand it could and would have. It was the rivalry between the major powers (The USA and Japan) as well as resistance to the Japanese in China and South East Asia that determined the course of the war in the Pacific.

    Saving New Zealand from the Japanese was not the real reason soldiers were sent away to die in WWII. The Japanese didn’t even join the Axis until 1940.

  33. joel says:

    //But one problem. The fight against fascism in the second world war had a different character than the other wars because it was a war against fascism.//

    Many Kiwis died fighting in Greece for the freedom of the Greek people. After WWII a military dictatorship was imposed on the Greeks because Greece was seen as too important to “lose” to the will of the people. That’s not freedom.
    Yes fascism needed to be fought. But it could have been fought ten years earlier. That 10 year gap played a big part in the eventual deaths of 50 million people.

    //I found the burning of the flag to be an ill conceived publicity stunt which in no way will further the cause of the NZWP.//

    Patrick. Last night on Newstalk ZB the discussion had moved from whether it was right or wrong what we did, to a discussion of what freedom of expression means in reality, quite a step forward from the usual lines of discussion.
    In all the news reports about this the question of New Zealand imperialism has come up again and again in a way that I haven’t seen in quite a while. This action has challenged people’s perceptions. A decent amount of the attacks on us that i’ve seen have been concerned with justifying and rationalising New Zealand’s actions, challenging people to consider what we’ve said and argue against it. Many people have come forward and said they are opposed to what New Zealand did. I think by next year we (i.e. the left or a more decent part of New Zealand society) will be much more advanced/nuanced than this year in the discussion surrounding ANZAC day…

    //Proverbially spitting in people’s faces doesn’t change people’s minds.//

    Patrick. I have been stopped many times now in the street and told to explain what I did. I hope in each of those instances I have been polite and courteous in my response. However my response has every time been to back up what I did and without unnecessary theatrics challenge the person back about why they hold the varied views they do. Some have agreed with me, some sit on the fence and some continue to think what we did was wrong. I’ve been at pains to be very clear that we did not “spit” in people’s faces and that if they consider that we did “spit” in their faces, why they consider the flag to be their proverbial face. If someone actually thinks that the flag is that close a representation of themselves, then they need to think about the uses of the flag in their name. I.e. at the front of any group of NZ soldiers fighting overseas in WWI, the Vietnam War, Iraq or Afghanistan today.

  34. Patrick says:

    John,
    There is no way you can tell what would have happened to Britain if New Zealand had not have sent help. It may have only been a small contribution but the winning margin in Crete and North Africa was usually but a small one. How would the Battle of Britain fared without Keith Park or NZ pilots? Hypothetically it could have altered the course of the war between Germany and Soviet Russia and perhaps the Japanese/American conflict as well.

    Joel,
    I don’t agree with the deployment of NZ troops to Iraq or Afghanistan.

    I just thought that burning the flag was stupid. I suppose since that it has earned the issue some attention so maybe not as stupid as I first thought.

    You didn’t mention the Boer War - over a hundred years ago but still quite relevant in the terms of imperialism.

    I suppose that I considered the act of flag burning to be somewhat passe. It borders on cliche.

  35. joel says:

    //There is no way you can tell what would have happened to Britain if New Zealand had not have sent help. It may have only been a small contribution but the winning margin in Crete and North Africa was usually but a small one. How would the Battle of Britain fared without Keith Park or NZ pilots? Hypothetically it could have altered the course of the war between Germany and Soviet Russia and perhaps the Japanese/American conflict as well.//

    We don’t argue that fascism shouldn’t have been fought. You couldn’t argue that the Nazi’s were a peaceful people offering no threat to anyone. However since that time you’ve seen myths being built up to muddy the water of the past.

    //You didn’t mention the Boer War – over a hundred years ago but still quite relevant in the terms of imperialism.//

    We might have missed it here. But throughout this whole episode we’ve started from the point of the Boer War.

    //I suppose that I considered the act of flag burning to be somewhat passe. It borders on cliche.//

    That’s why we’re not planning on it again in the near future.

  36. John Edmundson says:

    Patrick:
    “There is no way you can tell what would have happened to Britain if New Zealand had not have sent help…”

    It might feel good to think the New Zealand Division and a few Kiwi pilots is what saved the Soviet Union from the Nazis but actually it has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.

    The issue is not how influential the NZ army was in the war but WHY the soldiers were sent away to kill and die in the war. The official story is that they were fighting for freedom. But there isn’t really any evidence to back that up. If the allies had been fighting for freedom, they would have been granting freedom to the people under their control. But they weren’t. Some Indians even (mistakenly) saw the Japanese as potential liberators because Britain was not the least interested in Indian freedom. Britain interfered in Greece after the war. Britain didn’t free its colonies. Britain did nothing to promote freedom. It was meant to be business as usual. It was only Britain’s weakness after the war that meant India was able to get its independence and even then Britain resisted.
    Cheers,
    John

  37. Patrick says:

    I don’t need a history lesson thanks John. My initial point was that flag burning was a very reactionary way of getting attention to your cause.

    I can only imagine the effect it had on public opinion of the NZWP.

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 )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers