Trebuchet Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Originally posted by murdoch Right! A chance to pontificate at last! You go right on pontificating! That was very informative, and I certainly think supports my assertation that nazism was a form of socialism, just as a parliamentary democracy such as Britain is similar but not identical to a federal republic such as the US. A book I can highly recommend on the common origins of socialism, fascism, and communism is Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murdoch Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Here's some good sources for Nazi ideology: Bureaucracy: Karl Dietrich Bracher, The German Dictatorship Robert Lewis Koehl, The Black Corps Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship, Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation Voelkish/Nazi Ideology: Jost Hermand, Old Dreams of a New Reich Woodruff D. Smith, The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism In essence, Goering can be considered to be the center of the "rightist" Nazis, while Goebbels and to a lesser extent Himmler can be considered members of the "left" Nazi circle. As the war progressed, Goering and the "rightist" Nazis lost ground to the "left" Nazis; industry was progressively brought under State control, and "non-capitalist" industrial programs were embarked upon by, in particular, Himmler and the SS. The point is that "National" Socialism is not Marxian Socialism by any means; the Nazis had no faith in the "wisdom of the proletariat" to guide social development. Instead, the Nazis put their faith in the Fuherprinzip, or Leadership Principle, which mandated that whomever is the leader of a particular group is best suited to decide for all members what is best for the community. It is the duty of the subordinate to obey the leader; and each German (male) should be trained to be both a good leader and a good follower. Private property is recognized, as I mentioned before, but only small holdings (shops, houses, small farms.) Ownership of large industrial or technical enterprises should be controlled by the State for the good of the Volk as a whole. In this context you can view the technocratic expertise of Albert Speer in coordinating the military production of Nazi Germany from 1943 on as an example of this approach; the owners retained the title to their companies, but the State dictated production schedules, profits, and even factory sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebuchet Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 I suppose nazism could be called a "middle class socialism" whereas marxism is more a "working class" form of socialism. I've always found it rather ironic that while Marx expected the factory workers of Germany or England to be the ones who would rise up and impose socialism; the font of marxism ended up being the primitive economy of Russia. Nuadha implied the Nazis were not pagan, but it seems to me their ideals of a return to a mythological ideal world where the Aryan Volk rule is an implicitly pre-Christian ethos. An return, if you will, to the misty forests of primal worship of Wotan and the other proto-Germanic gods. Just because someone uses the word "God" doesn't mean they believe in a Supreme Being as defined by Christians, Jews or Muslims. And since Germany was a predominantly christian nation it would hardly have been good politics for Hitler to have said "I am greater than God" or "I don't believe in God." without it affecting his political prospects before he seized power. Certainly none of the upper eschelon Nazis were devout Christians; in fact they often persecuted churches. Any comments on this question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murdoch Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Paganism was a strong undercurrent in Nazi ideology; Himmler, Rosenberg, Darre, and others were the most ardent supporters of a neopaganistic interpretation of Nazi ideology. For the most part it fell flat; more pragmatic Nazis, such as Hitler and Goering didn't pay too much attention (and ridiculed) the paganistic aspects of Nazi thought. A good work on the subject is Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism . "Pagan" revivals such as "Thing" plays and such didn't really catch on. For the most part ordinary Germans remained members of their Churches. Catholicism was persecuted to a much greater extent than Protestants; most Protestant faiths were more or less ignored, unless the members or preachers in question spoke out against Nazism (such as Niemoller.) Nazism is, indeed, "middle-class" socialism. The lower-middle-class of shopkeepers, butchers, teachers, lower-level bureaucrats, and others of that strata made up the core of the party. These people were the most threatened from below by Marxian socialism, which threatened to remove their status as "propertied" individuals, and also by Big Business (department stores, large groceries, and the like) because the large concerns took away customers (much like the decline of "mom and pop" stores here in the US with the expansion of Wal-Mart.) These people also lost the most in the Depression; poor people did not have property to lose, and those who were rich enough could secure their possessions through out-of-country banks, or owned in title enough land to avoid the ruinous inflation and depression. To these people, Nazism offered protection of small businesses, prestige for their social strata of "skilled workers and farmers", and protection from "Jewish Socialism" and "Jewish Capitalism." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireg0lem Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Originally posted by Trebuchet 100% employment could only be achieved in a totally stagnant society where people hold the same job their entire lives without fear of being fired for incompetence or malfeasance. There would be no improving technology, because changes in technology means someone's profession is now outdated. The chariot builders would still have their jobs even though no one has used chariots in 2000 years. "Full employment" leaves no room for innovation, or for someone to quit to find a job they prefer, or to advance. For an interesting fictional discussion of this, you might want to check out (for those of you that haven't already) Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Destroyer Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Hello, Originally Posted by MisterVimes: Ultra and his cronies need a nation (preferably a socialist nation with a fascist underground or a fascist nation who needs a strong leader) that they can lead a revolution (meaning the UN will be unlikely to interfere) and overthrow the government. So... 1) Who do they invade (I was thinking Madagascar because of the size and it's an island)? 2) How do I keep UNICORN (my UNTIL) out of it? As far as question 1 goes, there's a bit of a problem. Fascist ideology in general is closely tied to nationalism, and your expatriate Nazis will be foreigners anywhere but Germany - arguably, even there, since many are other-worldly "aliens". This would tend to encourage behind-the-scenes action, with your Nazis propping up a local dictatorship somewhere as "powers behind the throne", much as Der Spinne/ODESSA did for its favored South American regimes. With superhumans and perhaps some Nazi super-tech, your Nazis could enjoy much more actual power than ODESSA did, and hold de facto rulership through a local puppet, rather than simply aiding like-minded rulers to spite ideological opponents. Your actual choice of nations is perhaps broader than you might think. A small but organized and ruthless faction, especially with superhuman assistance, could plausibly seize control during the chaos of popular revolution in any country. The Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, and the Nazis themselves all came to power in a very similar manner. The nation of choice need not be large to enjoy immunity and other diplomatic perks, and small island nations like the Comoros and the Seychelles have seen coups and power seizures by foreign mercenaries even as recently as the 1980s. Here's one suggestion that I've not seen anyone offer yet: Iran. It's larger even than Madagascar, the population is of "Aryan" racial stock, it has valuable natural resources (oil), a strategic position in the Middle East, a disdain for Jews, a distrust of both captialism and communism, a previous nationalistic government with powerful secret police and other quasi-fascist characteristics, minimal presence of intelligence services of major nations likely to meddle in events, a non-trivial scientific and industrial capability, and it currently has an oppressive government on the brink of total collapse. A change of government there would be welcome enough to many regional and world powers that, with a bit of discretion, your Nazis could plausibly avoid interference in their plans until they were solidly entrenched there. Question 2 is much simpler. Keeping a giant bureaucracy like the U. N. from acting is like keeping water from flowing uphill. And it's a buyer's market for permanent-member Security Council vetos. Heck, sometimes even the most heinous dictators have chances to get them dirt-cheap, if the vetoing power can back-stab a perceived rival in a manner that will improve its domestic political situation. Even overt Nazism might conceivably be ignored, given the praise for Hitler that pops up from time to time in certain government-controlled Arab media outlets, and is routinely ignored by major Western media. As to the other issues that have been examined: The "Fascism - 14 Characteristics" article was highly amusing. 13 of the 14 characteristics applied strongly to the old Soviet Union, which would presumably make it about 93% Fascist. Nationalism (of the sort that would call the greatest conflict in human history the "Great Patriotic War" for Holy Mother Russia, and suppress the languages and cultures of its subject states), disdain for human rights, scapegoats (the bourgeoisie, kulaks, counter-revolutionaries), military priority (20%-25% of GDP, vs. 8%-10% for U. S. and 3%-5% for Western Europe, shown off in all its glory every May Day in Red Square), sexism (regular preaching against abortion, "strict regime" camps for homosexuals), controlled media, national security paranoia, government-controlled religion, suppression of labor (Solidarnösc!), all-encompassing censorship in academia and the arts, harsh punishments for crimes and nigh-unlimited police power, cronyism, and bogus elections all had their place in Soviet Russia and its satellites. Lord Liaden's "Aryan homeland" concept seems interesting but unlikely. Even established nations with freely elected leaders that skirt the edges of similar principles have gotten the diplomatic backhand (see Austria). I'd find it hard to believe a new, upstart nation could succeed with such a policy. South Africa seems like a possibility, but a long shot. As Lord Liaden implied, the current South African regime is the darling of leftist politicians the world over. Still, apartheid SA does have historical ties to France, which could run interference for it in the UN, and who knows if all its nuclear weapons were really destroyed... Switzerland is an intriguing case, but also seems like a long shot, even with the ill will some Jews have recently stirred up there by suing for recovery of money and other treasures stolen by Nazis and deposited in Switzerland. Swiss neutrality and pragmatism and Nazi idealistic fanaticism seem too much at odds to mix well. Trebuchet, murdoch: you seem like sharp and well-educated folks. So I must say I'm a bit surprised to see you bothering to argue with those who believe that "there is only one Socialism and Marx is its prophet". The things which distinguish the broad outlines of socialism to a normal person - the command economy, the mix of egalitarian rhetoric with "vanguard of the revolution" elitism, the vast contempt for the middle class and its materialistic "bourgeois" values, the substitution of some form of "social conscience" for true conscience - are hopelessly simplistic to those immersed in progressivist Newspeak. Orwell's vision of a totalitarian future was a boot stomping on a human face, forever; to some, though, it's apparently not totalitarian if the boots are nice soft felt valenki rather than nasty hard leather jackboots. Such people do occasionally change their minds, but it seldom happens until the unpleasant truths of socialism in practice become undeniably blatant - which usually only occurs when one of their personal sacred cows is gored. But, I suppose, hope springs eternal... The comment about German business leaders being allied with the Nazis was particularly laughable. By those standards, American businesses are strong allies of the IRS (just look at all the money they give it!), just because a few of them think they can manipulate the tax code to their advantage against their competitors. The employment discussion was also chuckle-worthy - how hard can it be to have 100% employment when a regime can order everyone to work, at jobs of its choice, and fling those who refuse into prison for "parasitism"? The worker's-eye view of the situation was the classic Soviet proletarian's comment: "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." Anyway, hope this helps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibear Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Originally posted by Trebuchet ...better even than the vaunted Germans. Well, that is because Germans are more interested in getting to, and leaving from work on time than actually doing anything when they are there. Plus, they get a whole lot more holidays than North Americans, me I get 42 days a year. eddited for relevance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murdoch Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Originally posted by Scott Destroyer Trebuchet, murdoch: you seem like sharp and well-educated folks. So I must say I'm a bit surprised to see you bothering to argue with those who believe that "there is only one Socialism and Marx is its prophet". The things which distinguish the broad outlines of socialism to a normal person - the command economy, the mix of egalitarian rhetoric with "vanguard of the revolution" elitism, the vast contempt for the middle class and its materialistic "bourgeois" values, the substitution of some form of "social conscience" for true conscience - are hopelessly simplistic to those immersed in progressivist Newspeak. Orwell's vision of a totalitarian future was a boot stomping on a human face, forever; to some, though, it's apparently not totalitarian if the boots are nice soft felt valenki rather than nasty hard leather jackboots. Such people do occasionally change their minds, but it seldom happens until the unpleasant truths of socialism in practice become undeniably blatant - which usually only occurs when one of their personal sacred cows is gored. But, I suppose, hope springs eternal... True enough. A Socialist society is like the Loch Ness Monster; it may exist, but I've never seen it. Marxism-Leninism of the USSR, and Maoism-Marxism-Leninism of the People's Republic of China, were/are about as pure doctrinare Marxist as the Nazis. Socialism as a general concept predated Marx, and most of the Social Democratic parties/movements of western Europe (and the trade union movements of the USA) were non-Marxist Socialists by origin. But, as this is one big digression anyway...most of the pursuit of "ideal types" of political societies (like the "pure Socialist state") is by Political Scientists. All I can say is it hasn't worked yet, most Socialist-based societies either stagnating under the burden of trying to provide universal health care and universal employment (thus stifiling innovation and the pursuit of individual betterment) or being stuck in the classical "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase, which has translated into an oligarchical (or at times dictatorial) party state which, again, stifles individual effort and initiative. I guess my point is that there's all sorts of flavors of Socialist thought, not just Marxist, but none of them has seemed to work well yet. The comment about German business leaders being allied with the Nazis was particularly laughable. By those standards, American businesses are strong allies of the IRS (just look at all the money they give it!), just because a few of them think they can manipulate the tax code to their advantage against their competitors. In 1931 - 1932, Hitler made a conscious effort to approach the big German industrialists (Fritz Thyssen, for example, or Hugenberg) in order to secure funding and political support for the Party. The Industrialists, on the other hand, saw Hitler as being the only viable competition to the Communist Party - from 1931-1933 the largest political parties in Germany were the Communists and the Nazis, all other parties draining into minorities under the conditions of the Depression. Both sides approached the relationship with a cynical eye to "using" the other; to say German Industrialists were fervent Nazis is false (with a couple of rare exceptions.) Also, Hitler distrusted and disliked Big Business, but needed the money and political support they could offer. It was a devil's alliance, and both parties thought they could control the other once the issue of the Communist threat was settled. As it turned out, Hitler was right and the German Industrialists were wrong. That's not to say that German industrialists "suffered" under Nazism - rearmament and the confiscation of Jewish businesses before the war were tremendously profitable for them, and after the war started a constant stream of seized businesses and factories expanded large German concerns such as IG Farben and Krupp. However, any hope of real political influence was soon proven to be a mirage. It's a truism of Soviet historiography that makes the Industry/Nazi alliance an alliance of equals; in fact, it was just another example of Hitler using existing power groups (the Army is another classical example) in order to secure control and then gradually stripping those power groups of any real influence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuadha Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Originally posted by Trebuchet Well, just based on your screed it's not hard to see which end of the political spectrum you come from. First of all, if you disagree with my arguments that's fine. It's a free country and you can say anything you wish no matter how stupid it makes you sound. But you might at least try quoting me correctly. I said "socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others." There is an important difference between socialist ideas and socialism. One is a group of abstract concepts, the other is a system in power. I apologize if you felt I was misquoting you, but I wasn't not implying that was your exact quote. It was, however, the meaning of your statement. To say "socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others," is the same as saying "all socialism is bad." You did not say that "some elements of socialism is bad" or "socialism is mostly a bad thing, but they have a few good ideas." If that is what you meant, then perhaps you should have said that. Nothing gets me more riled up than when I hear (or read) someone make a blanket statement like "socialism is a bad thing in any manifestation. Some are just worse than others." You would be correct in assuming that I lean towards the left politically. This doesn't mean that I go around saying that "all conservatives are bad or anything of that sort. I'm willing to recognize the good and the bad what exists. Socialism may sound good when it's adherents are shouting the slogans in the streets, but it inevitably leads to oppression whenever it tries to run a government (See Nazi Germany, Revolutionary France, Marxist Russia, Maoist China, Fascist Italy). Every socialist government that ever existed has been oppressive, and the more purely socialist it is the more oppressive it is to the people it claims to be representing. That's cold historical fact. Many groups have had seemingly good ideas that ultimately failed the reality test. The problem with that statement is that not one of those states mentioned have been socialist. If having elements of socialism and having a "socialist wing" to a party makes it socialist, then the US Greens and Democrat parties could be called socialist. (The Democratic Socialists are a wing of the Democrat party.) The Nazis built the autobahns, made the trains run on time, and rebuilt the German economy, but I'm not prepared to call them good guys because they had some "good ideas." Actually, I'm pretty sure the myth of the trains running on time was attributed to Mussolini's Italy and was a myth. Your assertation that socialism provides 100% employment is a fantasy. Not even the Soviet Union and Mao's communist China have ever attained 100% employment. And the heavily socialized advanced nations (Italy, Germany, France, Japan) have unemployment numbers approximately twice that of evil corporate-run America. More capitalistic societies such as Singapore have lower unemployment rates than America. When you can give the example of a truly socialist society, we'll be able to compare employment rates. 100% employment could only be achieved in a totally stagnant society where people hold the same job their entire lives without fear of being fired for incompetence or malfeasance. There would be no improving technology, because changes in technology means someone's profession is now outdated. The chariot builders would still have their jobs even though no one has used chariots in 2000 years. "Full employment" leaves no room for innovation, or for someone to quit to find a job they prefer, or to advance. Unemployment is not an unmitigated evil, but also an important incentive to a dynamic economy. At one time 70% of Americans worked on farms; now the number is 2% but we're producing more food than ever. Is that truly the level of technology you want to be at? If so, why are you posting on a computer when you should be living in an Amish township and repairing windmills?" What makes you believe that just because there is full employment society can't change? If there were 100% employment, industries would have more of a workforce available to them. If people decide to change careers and return to school to learn a new trade, the workforce doesn't get thrown for the loop like a business these days because the business hasn't employed the bare minimum of employees in order to maximize their profits. And if you really think "capitalism has done a lot of good for the US, but it has also contributed to one of the world's most corrupt governments with politicians solidly in the pocket of big business," then you need to look around the world a bit more closely. America's political system is one of the least corrupt in human history. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. We probably look bad because unlike most nations we air our dirty linen in public due to our tradition of a free press. In most other countries corruption is seen as "business as usual," whereas in the US we at least try to put corrupt officials in jail. First of all, a "free press" is as hard to find as a "socialist society." Both of them are theories and philosophies that have never been realized in practice. Every form of media has reported the news of whoever pulls its strings. If Time/Warner or Clear Channel Stations or any other corporations that own most of the US media doesn't want a story pulished, it doesn't get published. As far as your statement that in the US " we at least try to put corrupt officials in jail," who was the last corrupt official that went to jail? Did Cheney and the Bush Administration go to jail for giving the Iraq rebuilding contracts directly to Halliburton after already making lots of money for Cheney's buddies with the war? Was the Bush administration's attack on corporate corruption ever anything more than a couple of token arrests while Dubya's buddies at Enron got away scott-free after robbing their employees and the state of California blind? And while corporations do donate large amounts of money to politicians, so do grass roots movements and political action groups. While, it is nice to think that political action groups outside the NRA would ever have enough money to make a difference, the problem still exists there: In America, politicians auction themselves off to the highest bidder. Corporate America usually have more money to bid thanks to the hard work and low pay of workers. American corporations "pay their workers so little" compared to whom? Lower class Americans have the same standard of living as middle class Europeans. "Poor" Americans own cars, TVs, microwaves, and often have weight problems from overeating. American workers are well paid and have the highest productivity in the entire world. If you think the poor of America have it OK, maybe you should tour the ghettos of Detroit or New York sometime. For a country that controls most of the wealth in the world, we shouldn't even have ghettos. Saying that because they can get a TV or microwave out of some rich guys trash, that they are OK is misleading. The poor are better off here than elsewhere but that doesn't make it just that companies like McDonald's can get away with paying their workers less than a person can possibly live on and then use the profits they make off of those workers to fight against minimum wage increases. The weight problems in America are from poor eating more than overeating. Americans, particularly poor Americans, consume more fast food than any other nation because it's cheaper than eating nutritious. Then, lacking the basic nutrition a body needs, they crave more food and eat more of what they can afford. Capitalism may make money for the business owners, but the biggest benefactors are the consumers who can buy goods at incredibly low prices. I own more clothes and live in greater comfort than Louis XVI of France. Prices are lower and clothing and items are mass produced due to technical advances that just as easily could have been developed in a socialist society. Mass production would be just as important in a society that is trying to improve living conditions for all as a society that is built on greed. Capitalism has made all of our lives better. It's even produced the heart medications my mom uses to deal with her congestive heart failure. Capitalistic American pharmaceutical companies develop over 60% of all new drugs worldwide every year; not government research facilities. So I trust you'll pardon me if my view of the evils of capitalism differs from yours. Do you believe that if the same research scientists were getting their paycheck from a government instead of a corporation they wouldn't have made the same discoveries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterVimes Posted July 22, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 I love it when the world conspires to help me... Fully armed Nazi bomber planes 'buried below East Berlin airport' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebuchet Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 Originally posted by Nuadha The problem with that statement is that not one of those states mentioned have been socialist. If having elements of socialism and having a "socialist wing" to a party makes it socialist, then the US Greens and Democrat parties could be called socialist. (The Democratic Socialists are a wing of the Democrat party.) When you can give the example of a truly socialist society, we'll be able to compare employment rates. Do you believe that if the same research scientists were getting their paycheck from a government instead of a corporation they wouldn't have made the same discoveries? 1) Taken from the "We don't know how good socialism is because we've never tried it in it's purest form" perspective, that's true. However, "pure" anything is a pipe dream when we're discussing the vagaries of human societies. I should point out that the US is by no means a pure capitalistic society either. Nor is capitalism a system of government, but an economic system. Socialism purports to be both (and must be, because making humans follow socialist ideals requires government force.). However, I think we've acquired enough empirical evidence to make an informed decision. In every place where some variant of socialism has been tried, it has led to both lower standards of living and less freedom for the population. Conversely, capitalism has led to higher standards of living and more freedom for the population wherever it has been tried. This doesn't seem to be all that difficult to see. 2) And you are quite correct, the current Democrats and Green parties in the US are blatantly socialistic. The Republican party is slightly less so, but it's still no shining beacon of conservatism and capitalism. 3) The point is that those research scientists don't work for the government, they work for private industry because private industry pays them salaries commensurate with their talents. France, Germany, and Britain combined have an economy nearly as large as America's and socialized medicine to boot. So where are the new drugs from these socialistic economic titans? What drugs did the Soviet Union develop, or China? Where are the advanced medical technologies from Norway or Sweden, supposedly the most advanced socialist nations on Earth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 Originally posted by Arthur So what's your point? Either way, outlawing something "because it's bad for you" is about as crystal-clear an example of Big Brother that I can detect. Although, for purposes of this discussion, I was thinking of the common argument I hear about "the damage to society". In a free country, I would be free to make my own decisions about how many cheeseburgers to consume and how much cocaine to snort, etc., as long as I did not harm anyone else. All arguments in favor of The War on Some Drugs are based on either micromanagement of my private life (totalitarianism) or "the good of society trumps personal freedom" (fascism). My point is that I'm tired of you calling our government fascists because they don't want you getting high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 Originally posted by MisterVimes I love it when the world conspires to help me... Fully armed Nazi bomber planes 'buried below East Berlin airport' Isn't that cool? If you care about the realistic implications of where a Nazi coup would be successful and ideologically sound - fictional country is the way to go. If you don't - like most comic books - do what sounds cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictorVonDoom Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 look at comics: i would suggest reading some comics 1) HYDRA (Nick Fury has faced them) 2) Red skull (in reborn Captain America he had an new worldorder) 3) Sect of the Serpent sons 4) Baron Von Strucker 5) Baron Blood (Vampire / Nazi scientist) but new fascisme is passé: where do you find it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.