Soviet Propaganda Believed by Most Americans Today

Status
Not open for further replies.

JWLZG

 
Banned
scorpion said:
Western culture actually peaked in the late 18th century. The combination of intact European traditions, Christian society and the new introduction of scientific/Enlightenment thinking was the perfect recipe for cultural invigoration. This was also before the Industrial Revolution first introduced Western man to the dehumanizing effects of technology applied on a societal scale. This was the era when Western civilization was at its spiritual, cultural and artistic/aesthetic peak. The 19th century was a slow downhill slide, and the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 began Western civilization's steep period of decline, which continues to this day.

A lot of people will think what I'm saying is totally ridiculous, but that's just because they're falling into the trap of measuring society simply by technological progress. Of course, this is obviously a terrible metric. Modern day North Korea would, by this measure, be a superior society to 1950s America or 18th century Europe, but no one would prefer to live there. The best way to measure the health of a society is to look at its art, music, literature, architecture and philosophy. A healthy, vibrant society will produce works that are uplifting, aspirational, idealistic, and which honor the past while anticipating a brighter future. A society that is in decline produces works that are degenerate, reductive, dehumanizing, simplistic, sexual, soulless and nihilistic.

Scorpion, you bring up valid points, but I really don't think any one of these can be used as a salient metric for societal peak. I think standards of living and quality of life need to be taken into consideration as a measure of societal value. I'm not disputing the cultural and spiritual peaks in Western civilisation that you brought up -- I've not doubt that The Magic Flute will continue to be enjoyed long after people have forgotten about 21 Jump Street -- but the truth is that these advances were really only reflective of the educated and upper classes. It would be far more telling for the richness in culture to be representative of the masses -- who, for the most part, never saw the inside of a classroom, were engaged in some form of unskilled labour and lived lives of rather squalid poverty.
Even the upper classes were hard-pressed to have seen a bar of soap or a toothbrush within a month, enjoyed primitive and ignorant standards of medical care and generally were oblivious to the ideas of wholesome living that we take for granted -- nutrition, exercise and work-life balance to name a few.

Perhaps I'm looking too firmly from behind my rose-coloured 21-century prism, but aside from being a part of that era's legacy towards mankind, I'm not sure of many of us would trade our status quo to be born at the same station in life in 1760.
 

Thomas More

Crow
Protestant
Just saw this same essay linked by Instapundit. I noticed the word divagation, which I didn't know, and thought it was amazing to run into it twice in one day, before I realized it was the same Eric S. Raymond essay.

I think Instapundit reads here sometimes, but I suspect it's an actual coincidence that he linked it and I saw the same essay referenced in two different places on the same day. The essay is from 2006, and I'd seen it before, but it's a classic.
 

scorpion

Hummingbird
Gold Member
JWLZG said:
Scorpion, you bring up valid points, but I really don't think any one of these can be used as a salient metric for societal peak. I think standards of living and quality of life need to be taken into consideration as a measure of societal value. I'm not disputing the cultural and spiritual peaks in Western civilisation that you brought up -- I've not doubt that The Magic Flute will continue to be enjoyed long after people have forgotten about 21 Jump Street -- but the truth is that these advances were really only reflective of the educated and upper classes. It would be far more telling for the richness in culture to be representative of the masses -- who, for the most part, never saw the inside of a classroom, were engaged in some form of unskilled labour and lived lives of rather squalid poverty.
Even the upper classes were hard-pressed to have seen a bar of soap or a toothbrush within a month, enjoyed primitive and ignorant standards of medical care and generally were oblivious to the ideas of wholesome living that we take for granted -- nutrition, exercise and work-life balance to name a few.

Perhaps I'm looking too firmly from behind my rose-coloured 21-century prism, but aside from being a part of that era's legacy towards mankind, I'm not sure of many of us would trade our status quo to be born at the same station in life in 1760.

There is more to life than your material wealth and creature comforts. Feelings of community, strong kin networks, purposeful work, spiritual faith, optimism for the future...all of these were in abundance for the average man of those days, while today they are in short supply. Basically, (and obviously) you are biased toward the present, being well acquainted with its advantages. However, I think you'd have a hard time convincing a man from that era to live in ours. A man from back then would find our modern world incredibly cold, isolating, degrading, depressing and meaningless compared to what he was used to. Most of us are so desensitized to modernity and ignorant of the past that we don't even realize how poorly we live compared to our ancestors in every way besides the material/technological. And while, yes, we have much fancier technology which allows us to lead more comfortable lives, this is actually quite poor compensation for the loss of family, community, culture, satisfying work and spirituality that inevitably accompanies a post-industrial society like ours.
 

Snowplow

Pelican
Gold Member
TonySandos said:
Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.
This part was what I thought was the scariest.

We are definitely seeing this go on. Ever since I've seen the videos with Yuri explaining subversion against the west I've been obsessed with finding/witnessing it in trace or large amounts. We are heading toward interesting times gents. History often repeats itself and we are another empire on shaky legs.

On the bright side, look at our group here. We have very intellectual men who see the writing on the wall. Men who know history and know how to salvage what's left and move on. When the shit hits the fan, it will come to no surprise to many of us, and we will not be paralyzed by the events (if it even happens in our lifetime) or fear. I hope nothing happens but I'm prepared for the worst, and hope for the best.
 

Snowplow

Pelican
Gold Member
scorpion said:
JWLZG said:
Scorpion, you bring up valid points, but I really don't think any one of these can be used as a salient metric for societal peak. I think standards of living and quality of life need to be taken into consideration as a measure of societal value. I'm not disputing the cultural and spiritual peaks in Western civilisation that you brought up -- I've not doubt that The Magic Flute will continue to be enjoyed long after people have forgotten about 21 Jump Street -- but the truth is that these advances were really only reflective of the educated and upper classes. It would be far more telling for the richness in culture to be representative of the masses -- who, for the most part, never saw the inside of a classroom, were engaged in some form of unskilled labour and lived lives of rather squalid poverty.
Even the upper classes were hard-pressed to have seen a bar of soap or a toothbrush within a month, enjoyed primitive and ignorant standards of medical care and generally were oblivious to the ideas of wholesome living that we take for granted -- nutrition, exercise and work-life balance to name a few.

Perhaps I'm looking too firmly from behind my rose-coloured 21-century prism, but aside from being a part of that era's legacy towards mankind, I'm not sure of many of us would trade our status quo to be born at the same station in life in 1760.

There is more to life than your material wealth and creature comforts. Feelings of community, strong kin networks, purposeful work, spiritual faith, optimism for the future...all of these were in abundance for the average man of those days, while today they are in short supply. Basically, (and obviously) you are biased toward the present, being well acquainted with its advantages. However, I think you'd have a hard time convincing a man from that era to live in ours. A man from back then would find our modern world incredibly cold, isolating, degrading, depressing and meaningless compared to what he was used to. Most of us are so desensitized to modernity and ignorant of the past that we don't even realize how poorly we live compared to our ancestors in every way besides the material/technological. And while, yes, we have much fancier technology which allows us to lead more comfortable lives, this is actually quite poor compensation for the loss of family, community, culture, satisfying work and spirituality that inevitably accompanies a post-industrial society like ours.


:potd:
 
In my opinion the Soviet experiment was just that - a live test field by the super-wealthy who funded, controlled & continued to support it via technology, food & money all throughout it's existence.

Reading Carroll Quigley's and Antony Sutton's books - both former US university professors and Quigley even a CFR member - clearly sheds some light on the whole crap.

The congressional Reece commission 1953-54 uncovered mountains of irrefutable data that would be termed "conspiracy" from A to Z in our times. The end goal of it all as stated by the Ford foundation back then was to culturally change the US population so much that it could be merged with the communist system comfortably in the future. That time has actually come - likely the desired system will have communist or even bolshevik social culture within a big-corporate economic system (otherwise it would not be viable).

Welcome to your new Gulag - they just use new slogans - instead of imperialist or capitalist pig they call you racist, misogynist, conspiracy theorist, "someone should ban his ass or contact his employer" etc.

And modern art Samseau - well all beauty had to go - the first modern art paintings were bought at extraordinary prices by the super-elite - the rest followed suit thinking that if they saw something in it, then it must be grand. The art world is actually quite simple to steer if you know which buttons to push. They are like lemmings in front of their gods of money and status. Their own perceptions of beauty or form have no meaning and the same is true regarding all other opinions - don't trust your own thoughts - trust the fucking "experts" and talking figureheads.

http://www.americandeception.com/index.php?page=searchkeyword
Reece commission documents

Talk by Norman Dodd from the Reece commission back then:



And yes - I know that within the so called alternative media there is a lot of disinfo and crazy out there - you just have to use your mind, which is actually not that difficult, since that viewpoint of our system makes more sense than the official one.
 

Sp5

 
Banned
Guys have to start doing some critical reading of these pieces, and dare I say it, deconstruction of the premises contained therein. Otherwise you're just consuming another flavor of blue pill.

This piece in the OP is another tendentious neocon polemic with fancy words presented as some kind of received truth, because it pushes the buttons. It's from 2006, when all of the pompous "warbloggers" were still in full blast. Reminds me of the guy who was regularly quoted by Instapundit as a serious strategic thinker, but was living in a basement and now only blogs on the subject of Japanese schoolgirl manga. DenBeste, yeah.

This guy Raymond is a one-trick pony: anyone not following the neocon line (itself derived from Trotskyism) is a Stalinist, see here: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?m=200211

Of course Iran must be attacked: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4927

This piece in the OP is just a string of strawmen and name-calling without any serious analysis of where we are now (or then), and without any real solutions to our problems. It also contains a not-so-hidden component of promoting war on Islam and Iran, a favorite neocon theme.

Even though neocon ideas are not that popular on RVF, ring the bell in a certain way, and you guys start salivating.

First, as pointed out before, and as someone who spent years in the US Army on the Central Front in Germany when it was weighted down by thousands of tanks and tactical nukes, I point out that the Soviets lost and we are now celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Wall coming down. And RVF members love those places that were on the other side of the Wall but also complain about creeping western consumerist cultural domination. Smart phones and attention whoring are market, not Marxist, products.

Second, this is written in 2006, did it or any other pieces of Raymond's say anything about the growing credit bubble then? Did he ever write about fraud by the banks in the mortgage securities markets? Did he ever write about money-printing by the Fed fueling asset bubbles? Not that I can see.

Third, he lumps Chomsky, Michael Moore and Robert Fisk in with Stalin. Well, what did they say that is so Stalinist? What about their critiques of US foreign and domestic policy is so wrong? I think Chomsky's right about a lot of things, and I've been on the inside of US adventures abroad. So did the late great Corporal Pat Tillman, before he was killed in Afghanistan after being in Iraq, too.

Fourth, most of the railing claiming "the left" or "intellectuals" say this:

There is no truth, only competing agendas.

is a strawman that really means - We have the truth, we are right, we are pure, because we say so!! Or, that certain sacred premises - of the Matrix, if you will - should be unexamined and branded as absolute truths.

Fifth, as I have mentioned before, the effect of leftist (or rightist) intellectuals on social and cultural change is like 2 degrees of rudder angle on the course of a supertanker. The forces of the globalized market with its flow of trillions of dollars and trillions of choices everyday, including media paid with advertising, are like 15 degrees of rudder or more. In other words, money talks, bullshit walks.

To sum up, this is propaganda to fuel more warmongering and ripping off the American people via Social Security reductions and defaults, to fuel more crony bailouts and even more warmongering, etc.
 

The Reactionary Tree

Pelican
Gold Member
George Patton was right. We should have armed the German people after their defeat and invaded Moscow. I honestly believe that the most evil empire was victorious in WWII, the Soviet Union.

What was the point of it all? The Anglosphere entered WWII because Germany invaded Poland and what became of the war was that Poland was delivered on a silver platter to the Soviets.

The real truth is that Nazism is evil because it killed 6 million Jews but Communism only killed 100 million political dissidents.
 

Sawyer

 
Banned
Another consequence of Stalin’s meme war is that today’s left-wing antiwar demonstrators wear kaffiyehs without any sense of how grotesque it is for ostensible Marxists to cuddle up to religious absolutists who want to restore the power relations of the 7th century CE.

The real consequence of the Stalin's meme war is that we still don't understand that Hitler was right or that 6 million Jews did not die in "death camps" or that there is no contradiction at all that a Marxist would wear a kaffiyeh. None whatsoever.

The real consequence of Stalin's meme war is that such a comment as above will cause an aneurism in 95% of the members of modern "Western" Civilization.

But we're adults and we can handle it.
 
Sp5 said:
I think Chomsky's right about a lot of things, and I've been on the inside of US adventures abroad. So did the late great Corporal Pat Tillman, before he was killed in Afghanistan after being in Iraq, too.

Chomsky certainly wasn't right about the Cambodian holocaust and defending the Khmer Rouge. Nor was he right to travel to North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

Chomsky was a communist stooge.

Keep that in mind when you go slamming the author of this piece for sounding like a neocon.
 

Grange

Kingfisher
Sawyer said:
Another consequence of Stalin’s meme war is that today’s left-wing antiwar demonstrators wear kaffiyehs without any sense of how grotesque it is for ostensible Marxists to cuddle up to religious absolutists who want to restore the power relations of the 7th century CE.

The real consequence of the Stalin's meme war is that we still don't understand that Hitler was right or that 6 million Jews did not die in "death camps" or that there is no contradiction at all that a Marxist would wear a kaffiyeh. None whatsoever.

The real consequence of Stalin's meme war is that such a comment as above will cause an aneurism in 95% of the members of modern "Western" Civilization.

But we're adults and we can handle it.

Get a load of this guy.
 

TonySandos

Pelican
Gold Member
Sp5 thanks for providing a great counterpoint.

I can agree with a sizable portion of your view, but respectfully disagree with other parts.

Someone self identifying as a classical liberal does out themself as a neocon, but that's not necessarily terrible in itself, just as claiming modern liberalism isn't. The far poles of each group is the concern and I think the author did a good job explaining that while also arguing that warmongering isn't favorable also.

Only the truly fascist and insane people favor actual culture wars. The purpose of this piece for me was not if I identify with the 'correct' politics, but if society can untangle itself enough to get along and thrive.

Regardless of your politics or party, the take away is to recognize that a large part of the current American dialog was built on shaky ground, and while idealistic, we need to be more methodical.
 

Kitsune

Pelican
This could all be solved if people read two introductory books. One on logic, the other on rhetoric.

Most people have no idea how arguments are formed, or how to critically assess the information that they're given. As a result, most people can't build a cohesive moral framework nor see where there is or isn't a moral argument.

This makes divide and conquer very easy. It makes emotional arguments more important than factual ones. You see the results everywhere in society, especially in supposedly counter-culture environments.
 

Samseau

Eagle
Orthodox
Gold Member
frenchie said:
Cattle Rustler said:
Samseau, if the US is in cultural decline... Can you point me to some examples of cultural peak/climax?

I think you can peg 1950s Americana as the zenith. The 60s were when the slope began to start.

No. I would actually peak America's cultural zenith around 1910, right before the 20's gilded age. The gilded age was truly the last hurrah. The gilded age was decadence built on debt built on WWI that brought about a terrific crash of the world economy, and then things deteriorated so much the American government of limited interference was forever changed into the Monster it is today by FDR.

WWI caused European nations to start taking out massive loans from the US gov in order to sustain themselves. At the same time, the USA just had created it's first Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. As part of the creation of a national bank system, the FED said it would guarantee all banks deposits up to an unrealistic amount. So a huge influx of cash came to American cities via European war debts and began the first real era of American metropolitan cities. This money fueled the start of huge American extravagance in major American cities (famously captured in The Great Gatsby) based on nothing more than debt money.

Millions of Americans wanted to spend more; the FEDs promised backstop allowed American banks began to lend out money to anyone for any reason; Americans started to invest in stocks with the lent out money; the stocks continued to rise throughout the rest of the 1920's with this borrowed money; when the crash came the FED discovered it lacked sufficient reserves to bail out the system. (Contrast this to today's FED, which did bailout the system after 2008's crash.)

By the end of the 1920's Europe had been seriously injured in WWI, but now the United States was also bankrupt. Citizens of the USA elected FDR, the worst president in American history. Not only did he do nothing to restore the economy, but he also kept himself in power by abusing the executive and legislative branches in ways that has caused permanent damage to the American political system.

FDR marked the true end of classical Republic America and the start of Empire America. Under FDR the executive branch expanded its powers to an enormous degree that has since turned the president into a de-facto dictator. FDR established all of the "alphabet agencies," such as the CIA, NSA, etc, which were given full authority to make laws. Think about this: in addition to elected representatives, now there were bureaucrats making American laws. Both unprecedented and probably one of the worst problems with American government today, the expansion of the Executive branch in the 1930's has all but guaranteed the non-stop centralization of American government whose process continues to this day.

You might say American was sucked into a war it did not want to be in, and perhaps you would be right, but keep in mind FDR did everything in his power to prevent a Hitler victory without declaring war. His lend-lease act (unconstitutional) gave huge financial support to Britain and Russia, who in exchanged promised to repay back the debts after the war. In essence, America was hiring them to do the job of fighting Germany. It is extremely doubtful Britain would have kept fighting if they faced Germany without American support.

After WW2, the old days of the sleepy American Christian villages turned into imperialistic materialistic and hedonistic America. Huge cities, endless suburbs. It did not happen overnight, but between 1940 - 1950 America went from a country focused on simple communal living to a country obsessed with all affairs of the world.

Taking over Germany meant America was charged with protecting Europe from Russia, who was worse than Hitler. Indeed WW2 seems like a mistake in hindsight, as the escalating war with America prompted Hitler to order the Final Solution, and Poland, which was supposed to be returned to its own dominion became a territory of the USSR. And thus America's permanent military was born.

At the same time the endless war was occurring, America became supremely rich from the spoils of WW2. Everyone knows the story of how American factories rebuilt Europe, and provided them with everything from Automobiles, food, oil, to the culture machines called television.

The centralized government, the unprecedented power of American military, and the enormous wealth enjoyed by most Americans really meant the death of everything that once made America's culture great. The great increase in luxury meant most Americans no longer cared about whether or not they followed the norms of their forefathers. The old virtues were lost. The sexual revolution was of course the inevitable outcome. Even had the advances in birth control not come about, I maintain the sexual revolution would have happened anyways, as it did in Ancient Greece, Rome, Byzantine empires. Even Arab Empires drowned in excesses of endless slave girls which made them softer over time.

And as ordinary Americans became soft and spoiled, fewer Americans paid attention to what their fellow citizens were doing or believing. Things taught in American universities in the 1960's were brought in under free-speech, but once those left-wing ideologies became dominant on campuses they quickly suppressed any dissent. And now of course these same destructive ideologies pervade the cultural fabric so much, fathers are thrown in jail for being unable to pay a certain amount of money to a woman who divorced him, even if the amount of money ordered to be repaid is far too high. Unfortunately, no one can really fix the system easily at this point, as once the government gains power (as it did during the 1910's, 20's, and especially 30's,) it rarely relinquishes it without a bloody fight.

Thus, it was the centralization under FDR combined with the decadence brought by the war spoils of WW2 that brought about the end of America's old Christian republican culture. So it was more during the turn of the century that still represented the zenith of old American culture before the corruption of FDR and WW2 came about.
 

General Stalin

Crow
Gold Member
Gotcha!

Really though, all the specifics and the historical minutia aside, the real punctuation I get from this piece is that nothing is static and nothing is perfect. Not to sound nihilistic, but history has shown that all great empires fall, all cultural movements end/evolve, and on a long enough timeline everything becomes rather insignificant. The America we know today is extremely different than the America 300 years ago that we read about in history books (accurate or not).
 

DChambers

Woodpecker
^^ Samseau. Your very accurate in this post, just one thing. The Gilded age generally refers to the time period of around 1875-1900. Not a big deal, but my ocd for historical accuracy is compelling me to point that out. 1920's were the Roaring 20's.

The Gilded Age is characterized by the emergence of the Railroad and the rise of the Captains of Industry (or Robber Barons depending on your political leanings), following the reintegration of the Southern States from 1865-1876 and the end of Reconstruction.
 

Orion

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Many will disagree, because it sounds bad, but west peaked when it dominated 90% of the planet, which would be 19th century. There were only a fistful of states worldwide not dominated by European nations. Even those independent, such as Japan, had to abide by western imposed rules.
 

Feisbook Control

Kingfisher
Tony Sandos: Any particular Taleb Twitter quotes you like? I've just read the past week's worth of his tweets. There's all sorts of good stuff in there on a range of topics. Taleb is fantastic. I've been a fan of his for a while. I think a large part of why he is fantastic is precisely because he didn't grow up in the Protestant northeast of the United States, and so has so many politically incorrect ideas as a result, yet he is also extremely learned (something he attributes to hiding in a bomb shelter for much of his youth and having nothing else to do but read) and (very importantly) extremely cosmopolitan. He's every liberal's worst nightmare: a minority who is smarter than them and doesn't buy into their bullshit one iota.

JWLZG: Of course the modern era is the greatest era in terms of health and hygiene. Of course there is not the absolute poverty that there was before. This is wrong on many levels, however:

...never saw the inside of a classroom, were engaged in some form of unskilled labour and lived lives of rather squalid poverty.
Even the upper classes were hard-pressed to have seen a bar of soap or a toothbrush within a month, enjoyed primitive and ignorant standards of medical care and generally were oblivious to the ideas of wholesome living that we take for granted -- nutrition, exercise and work-life balance to name a few.

People didn't need to see the inside of a classroom. There were other forms of education, such as the guild system. Having worked in education, I wouldn't hold the modern classroom up as a pinnacle of education. In fact, I'd say that it fails children because many come out the other side pretty ignorant of most "book learning" and also have no practical skills.

It's also wrong to describe people in the past as being unskilled labour, even people who worked on the land outside of the cities and weren't specialised craftsmen. Agriculturalists and pastoralists, even hunter gatherers, had a large body of knowledge and skills that most of us don't possess. I'm not trying to paint some version of the noble savage here. I'm merely pointing out that unskilled labour, to my mind, is something like loading a stack of boxes onto a truck. I wouldn't have the foggiest idea when to sow or harvest a field of wheat, or how to assist a cow in birthing a calf. Likewise, I wouldn't know how to cook/use every single part of an animal so as not to waste any of it. That's not unskilled labour, just because it doesn't involve knowing how to use Microsoft Excel.

The notion of poverty in the past also needs to be reconsidered. Aside from community and so on, as has been mentioned by Scorpion, the average peasant in the past was poorer in material terms, but also had more free time, believe it or not. Being harried upon a production line was an advent of the industrial world. A friend of mine told me that nurses in some American states are now equipped with GPS trackers. If they spend too much time with each patient, they get in trouble, and that's for professionals. Those who do real unskilled labour have it far worse in terms of being constantly micromanaged. Peasants in the past did often do backbreaking work, and there were times throughout the year when they had to really get moving, but they largely worked at their own pace and had a lot of down time also, much of it formally built into the calendar through a large number of holy/feast days.

As for wholesome living, I think that's wrong again. No one went to the gym in the past because no one needed to go to the gym. Their lives were inherently physical. Even the upper classes lived more physical lives if they weren't complete layabouts. As for what they ate, again, I think you're wrong. Their problems were usually to do with malnutrition, but they didn't have issues such as obesity. Many peasant diets look horribly unhealthy to us, but they could afford to eat fatty and stodgy foods because they burnt the calories off (and they didn't eat those foods every day and had smaller portion sizes). The really important point was sugar consumption. Even as long ago as sixty years ago, people simply didn't consume much sugar because sugar was outrageously expensive. A really clear illustration of this was the Seven Years' War in the mid-eighteenth century. If I remember correctly, France was given the option of ceding all of Quebec (an absolutely huge territory) or the islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe, which are tiny in comparison. So valuable was sugar production, that they chose to hang on to those two tiny islands and gave away Quebec to Britain. As for work-life balance, I've already mentioned that, as have others.
 

Vaun

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Samseau said:
Second, what the hell does tax policy have to do with cultural issues?

Its the only tool that can be used to control a population, before the onset of outright marshall law.

And who is in charge of that now, 1960-90's SJW's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top