Bearish on Men

May 5, 2024 //
0

The “we prefer bears” meme is feminist larping. “Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear?” Ha!

Feminists and thots know it’s a joke, which is why most laugh when they respond, on camera, to the question with the ursine answer. In reality, not even one feminist in a hundred would actually choose the bear. The percentage of men who are as dangerous as bears can be is small; the percentage of bears who are in fact as dangerous as bears can be is larger. Feminists say they will choose bears over men because ragging on how dangerous men are is fun, sportive. It’s part of what feminism is. 

The larping goes on, in part because feminism has always been a status game, not a sexually egalitarian movement. It’s been quite successful way for some women to gain status with high status men while doing what most women have always done with alacrity: beef about low-status men. But sub rosa it’s a way of attacking mid-status men for not being high-status. 

The low-status men are the criminals, the layabouts, the gimps, and the insane — the defectives. But some of them have higher sexual cachet among women than the mid-status men. The men feminists really hate.

That’s the most interesting point. Now that monogamy is mostly dead, 80 percent of the women seek 20 percent of the men, and get them in serial monogamy or default polyamory. This leaves 80 percent of men as mockable.

“We prefer bears” is a passive-aggressive way of throwing shade upon not the dangerous men, but the mid-level men who don’t live up to women’s standards.

It’s rather funny. Feminism is the sexual alchemy by which a majority of the male population has been transmuted into the minority, leaving only top-status men as worth anything in women’s (feminists’) judgments. It is wildly unrealistic and nasty, but so preposterous that calling it misandry might be doing it too much honor.

twv

Categories Uncategorized

Biden a Proven Commodity

April 29, 2024 //
1

“I don’t know why we’re surprised by Trump,” intoned the President of These United States. “How many times does he have to prove we can’t be trusted?”

How many times, indeed!

This is one of the president’s more delectable gaffes. His enemies understandably gloat. “When you’re so senile that the truth keeps slipping out,” tweeted one. There were many others mining this vein.

If by mining we mean picking up the shining rocks right out in the open, beneath our feet.

But Biden didn’t mean it. He merely said it.

The geriatric meant much of the rest of his recent Tampa speech pretty much as he spake it. 

He started off talking about abortion, and about the event organizer who “represents what millions of women in Florida now face.” 

What do they face? 

Well, starting Wednesday, May 1, they face a ban on abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, that is, after the sixth week. Before that, but after the Roe decision was overturned, Florida women were not allowed to abort their babies only after the 15th week. But they still could get abortions if they acted fast enough. Still can. They just face a deadline.

Apt word, that: deadline.

The banners behind him boldly proclaimed “Reproductive Freedom” with the BIDEN/HARRIS logo below it, and, bigger yet, at center, “Restore ROE.”

But the Roe regime cannot simply be restored by “your votes,” as Biden implies. The Supreme Court would not easily overturn the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe; a second-term Biden would have to pack the court to get what he wants.

Unrestricted abortion certainly cannot be re-established nationwide by legislation, for Dobbs sent the matter back to the states. It would take a constitutional amendment to make abortion legal in all states. Unlikely.

Once again, Biden has proven he cannot be trusted.

Tags , , , ,
Categories Leaders/Demagogues/Führers, Public Policy

The Steady Fall of Presidential Timber

April 28, 2024 //
0

Until Trump, I could argue that the decline in presidential timber was pretty obvious. There was Nixon, whom I loathed, as the media told me to, in the 1970s. But then came Ford, and he didn’t seem so bad, at least if you forget about the idiotic WIN campaign.

I would’ve voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976, if I had been allowed to vote. But Carter quickly betrayed his most interesting campaign promise, and botched the rollout of deregulation in America. So he was worse than Ford, as I judged before 1980.

Ah, Reagan. I was no fan. I did not love or hate him, but it wasn’t he who whipped inflation — that was Paul Volcker, and by 1980 I understood monetary policy somewhat — and it was he who signed the appropriation bills to raise expenditures and the debt. He also “fixed” Social Security in the manner prescribed by Ponzi schemers. I judged him worse than Carter long before he exited office. And before I helped publish Murray Rothbard’s “Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy.”

I always hated ex-CIA Director George Herbert Walker Bush. He presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union and then proceeded to make sure that there would be no “peace dividend.” He set America on its course of pointless wars forever. How I hated GHWB!

Bill Clinton was a horror show, though. I never liked him or his wife. I cut my teeth writing about politics on mocking him. I could never forgive him for the massacre near Waco, Texas. Evil man with an evil wife. “Worst president ever” . . . until 2000, when the choice was between the risible Al Gore, the Know-Nothing-At-All, and George Walker Bush, who didn’t pretend to know anything. Bush got in, “9/11” happened, and then came the wars, the torture, the surveillance, the security theater, making Clinton look good. The decline was a pattern.

But time doesn’t stand still. In 2008, the Republicans needed to be punished for their insane lie-based wars. And Obama sure seemed better. Though I promoted him to my Democrat friends over the execrable Hillary Clinton, and Democrats rightly leaped away from Her Horrificness, electing him as president was a really bad move. He was obviously being blackmailed by the Deep State, for he quickly toed the line to continue bombing campaigns and detention systems and spying on citizens, but it got worse: he turned his back on racial reconciliation, which had been well under way, and fanned the flames of racial antagonism and the culture war. More subtly, the admiration for him as a “cool guy” was so cringe that it ruined the left, morally. Leftist culture never recovered. Obama’s second term made it clear that he was indeed a worse president than GWB.

But then we got Trump, in one of the big surprises of our time. Though beleaguered from the start, his first three years were so good that I thought he broke the pattern of perpetual decline. Best Prez Since Ford? I marveled. But 2020 happened, and he reacted badly — in the worst possible way, actually — and then lost control of everything, allowing the return of the Democrats.

Which leads us to Joe Biden, who — morally, intellectually, and as a proponent of policies — is the worst president in American history. He is a doddering old corrupt pedo. And not in control. What a low point!

My fear is that the only person who could be worse than Joe Biden would be Donald Trump Redivivus: he will be so beset on all sides, somehow he’ll go the wrong way and top the awfulness of 2020. It may not be “his fault,” but he could still become the worst president.

twv

Tags , , , ,
Categories Uncategorized

Mitch Smiles

March 7, 2024 //
0

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is hell-bent on leaving office under a cliché. “Well,” he told reporters on March 6, “we have term limits now. They’re called elections.” 

That is what Mr. McConnell said when asked whether he supports term limits for the Senate GOP leadership position.

Previously he had been asked about supporting Trump. He was very careful with his words, and, with all the style and panache of a constipated robot, he explained that he had answered the question in 2021 — after, mind you, “the attack on the Capitol” — and that he had not changed his mind.

He was asked again about it, and he repeated his answer. Yes, he would support any nominee of the GOP. And he admitted that Trump was going to be that candidate.

Headlines have made much of this, but it’s old news: old-school politician supports his party’s candidate is not exactly groundbreaking. 

But the old power politician looked almost human when the subject changed to term limits. He smiled. Almost. I couldn’t quite capture it with a screenshot. But the hint of amusement was there. It’s almost as if regards the cliché about term limits as a truth of sly wit.

It isn’t. People serving in government do so in a range of ways: under unlimited tenure; limited by terms, requiring a vote for a new term; and limited by a strictly limited number of terms. Requiring a vote is not a “term limit.” It is merely a term. Terms in office is a basic republican feature. Term limits is a stricter republican feature.

Aristotle liked term limits, but politicians tend not to, so they pretend the first, basic limit on tenure in government is the same as the second, additional stricture.

“We already have term limits” is not so much wit but a fraudulet swindle.

Not worth the tiniest of Mitchy smiles.

twv

Categories Politics

Novels to Read in 2024

January 31, 2024 //
0

Yes, this is a list of shame. So many great books I have not read! The asterisks mark books I am halfway through, but misplaced at some point during the reading; the paragraph markers are used to indicate books I’ve read, but need to read again.

But this reading plan depends upon a number of factors beyond my control, like surviving the next eleven months: It is all very iffy, “the good Lord willing and the creek don’t rise.”

Adrian Barnes:

      Nod

Julian Barnes:

      The Sense of an Ending

Max Barry:

     Jennifer Government

H.E. Bates:

     Hark Hark the Lark!

Anthony Burgess:

     The Kingdom of the Wicked

James Branch Cabell:

     Something About Eve *
     The King Was in His Counting House

Arthur C. Clarke:

     The City and the Stars
     Childhood’s End
     The Fountains of Paradise

Peter DeVries:

     The Prick of Noon

Philip K. Dick:

     Ubik
     The Man Whose Teeth Were All Exactly Alike

Charles Dickens:

     Bleak House

Lawrence Durrell:

     Monsieur & and its sequels, the whole of the Avignon Quincunx

Vardis Fisher:

     Jesus Came Again
     We Are Betrayed

Günter Grass:

     Local Anesthetic

Frank Herbert:

     Dune

Hermann Hesse:

     Narcissus and Goldmund
     Magister Ludi §

William Dean Howell:

     The Rise of Silas Lapham *

Aldous Huxley:

     The Genius and the Goddess *
     Antic Hay§
     Time Must Have a Stop §
     The Devils of Loudun

Stanislaw Lem:

     Solaris
     The Invincible 

Christopher Priest:

     A Dream of Wessex/The Perfect Lover
    Inverted World
     Expect Me Tomorrow

Ayn Rand:

     Atlas Shrugged

Alistair Reynolds:

     House of Suns
     Revelation Space

James H. Schmidtz:

     The Witches of Karres
     The Demon Breed

Tom Sharpe:

     The Midden

Olaf Stapledon:

     Odd John
     Star Maker §

Arkady & Boris Strugatsky:

     Roadside Picnic
     One Billion Years to the End of the World

Adrian Tchaikovsky:

     The Expert System’s Brother

William Makepeace Thackeray:

     Vanity Fair *

John Updike:

     Roger’s Version *
     S.
     Gertrude and Claudius

John Wyndham:

     The Trouble with Lichen

Categories Books/Reviews, Novels, Ultrafiction — F & SF

She Who Guffaws Last

January 24, 2024 //
1

Much was made of Nikki Haley’s claim, after the Ohio caucus results, that the Republican race for the presidential nomination had become a “two-way” affair. She had come in third. Guffaws all around.

But the second-place contestant, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, soon dropped out, along with Vivek Ramaswamy, who had come in fourth.

So, in New Hampshire’s primary, it was indeed a two-way race between former President Donald Trump and former Trump Administration diplomat Nikki Haley. The results showed Trump with a healthy majority vote, 54.3 percent, to Haley’s 43.3 percent.

While this is a decisive victory for Trump, Haley is obviously no mere also-ran. Hers is nothing like a minor-party effort.

But what is it?

Well, it is an establishment effort. 

CNN puts the Trump vote in the Crazy Extremist context, noting that a supermajority of New Hampshire Trump supporters believe, “incorrectly,” that the 2020 election was stolen. That ratio of “nut” voters to “sober” voters is flipped for Nikki Haley’s support.

Unfortunately for New Hampshire’s Republican governor, who endorsed Nikki Haley, the most pertinent question about Nikki Haley’s support is how little of it comes from Republicans. There was, as CNN noted in the same report, quite a lot of “strategic voting” going on, with Democrats jumping the aisle for Nikki Haley solely to reduce the influence of the Dread Donald Trump.

They would never vote for Haley in the general election.

Which sort of undermines the integrity of the very idea of political parties. What use are they in states that allow cross-party voting? 

Open primaries, as they are called, are popular because they do undermine the power of political parties, and rein in “extremism” on both sides. 

But now that America has ideologically aligned by parties — or, rather, the Democratic Party has so successfully captured the “insider” party position leaving the Republican Party in the Sisyphean role of perennial “outsider” status, with Trump as its much-loved/much-loathed Forever the Outcast Figure — “fixing it” with minor reforms like allowing for more strategic voting is beating on a dead horse. 

The Nikki Haley candidacy is an attempt to keep Republicans relevant to the war machine, plying the old Wilsonian idea of constant warfare for democracy, trying to keep a foot in the game. A major party like the GOP cannot easily survive if always cast as an outsider party. That’s not how you make your billions.

For these people — for elite Republicans as well as the thoroughly elitist Democrats — it has never been about saving the republic or increasing Americans’ freedoms. It is always about big advantages in wealth accumulation, always adjusting the siphon and the vig of the tax revenue of the biggest government on Earth.

We guffaw at our own expense.

Tags , , , ,
Categories Party Push and Pull, Politics

It Was a Great Year for the Movies — Three Decades Ago!

December 24, 2023 //
2

It is Christmas Eve, and my dog Dasher is sleeping by my side on my office recliner as I type, and when he briefly wakes up to reposition himself, he does not snarl at Maga, the kitty, a yard away on my digital piano’s keyboard, also asleep. Something like a Peaceable Kingdom. And instead of watching a movie I am writing about what a good year in movies it was — thirty years ago.

The occasion is Jesse Walker’s annual review of the year in movies, peeling it back decade by decade from each new current year. He just got to 1993. And what a year it was.

For one thing, I think that is the year that Jesse moved to Port Townsend, and we may have watched several of these together. Perhaps at the newly opened Rose. Be that as it may, or may not, here is his list from his blog:

1. Short Cuts
Directed by Robert Altman
Written by Altman and Frank Barhydt, from stories by Raymond Carver

2. Groundhog Day
Directed by Harold Ramis
Written by Ramis and Danny Rubin

3. A Perfect World
Directed by Clint Eastwood
Written by John Lee Hancock

4. The Nightmare Before Christmas
Directed by Henry Selick
Written by Caroline Thompson and Michael McDowell, from a story by Tim Burton

5. Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould
Directed by François Girard
Written by Girard, Don McKellar, and Nick McKinney

6. Latcho Drom
Written and directed by Tony Gatlif

7. Fearless
Directed by Peter Weir
Written by Rafael Yglesias, from his novel

8. Manhattan Murder Mystery
Directed by Woody Allen
Written by Allen and Marshall Brickman

9. Dottie Gets Spanked
Written and directed by Todd Haynes

10. True Romance
Directed by Tony Scott
Written by Quentin Tarantino

Jesse’s “Honorable Mentions”:

11. The Bed You Sleep In (Jon Jost)
12. Red Rock West (John Dahl)
13. Mad Dog and Glory (John McNaughton)
14. The Scent of Green Papaya (Tran Anh Hung)
15. The Wrong Trousers (Nick Park)
16. The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl (Ray Müller)
17. Body Snatchers (Abel Ferrara)
18. The Junky’s Christmas (Nick Donkin, Melodie McDaniel)
19. The Hour of the Pig (Leslie Megahey)
20. Blue (Krzysztof Kieslowski)

Taste being what it is, non-est-disputandable-and-all, my preference-ordered list looks a little different:

  1. Blue (Krzysztof Kieslowski)
  2. Short Cuts (Raymond Carver, Frank Barhydt, Robert Altman)
  3. Groundhog Day (Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis)
  4. The Scent of Green Papaya (Tran Anh Hung)
  5. Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould (Don McKellar, Nick McKinney, François Girard)
  6. Fearless (Rafael Yglesias, Peter Weir)
  7. The Fugitive (Jeb Stuart, David Twohy, Andrew Davis)
  8. The Wrong Trousers (Nick Park)
  9. A Perfect World (John Lee Hancock, Clint Eastwood)
  10. Schindler’s List (Steven Zaillian, Steven Spielberg)
  11. Red Rock West (John Dahl)
  12. True Romance (Quentin Tarrantino, Tony Scott)

I have not seen all the movies that Jesse lists. And I do not scorn Schindler’s List like he does, nor do I think that the crowd-pleaser The Fugitive is a worse movie than, say, Red Rock West. It’s a perfectly made bit of pure Hollywood fluff, and deserves some honor. The Firm, from that year, arguably is better than True Romance, which just squeaked onto my list. While in memory True Romance is too quirky by half, and ultra-violent, so not necessarily to my taste, it is still Tarrantino, and I remember how much I liked it at the time. Blue, on the other hand, is one of my all-time favorite films, and I have watched it many, many times since, which I cannot say about Short Cuts or Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould.— or most of the films on even my list, excluding Groundhog Day and Fearless.

The best way to know what your favorite movies are is how many times you have seen them, right? That is why Blue has to be on top — and True Romance at the bottom — of my Top Twelve.

And if you wonder why a Top Twelve and not a Top Ten — this is in part about the great film stars, no? Think zodiacal; think twelve. Though neither Jesse nor I list the stars that stood out in these films, in most of these the actors had a great deal to do with it. Juliette Binoche, Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell in two of the films, almost every actor in Short Cuts — talk about great performances! And in True Romance we have Christian Slater’s best role, and great performances by Patricia Arquette, Gary Oldman, Christopher Walken, Val Kilmer, and many, many others.

I would have to watch Manhattan Murder Mystery again to place it on any list. I remember liking it, but remember not one other thing about it. I am pretty sure I have watched it twice, but if I remember nothing, it does not seem a likely candidate for any Tops list.

Also, one of the charms of Jesse’s lists-in-review is that he often includes TV Series as films. And in 1993 The X-Files series debuted. But it was in its second season that it got great. But in 1993, the greatness of the sitcom Seinfeld became obvious to the general public, so a mention there might be a good idea. So that is about all I can do for an “Honorable Mention” portion of the list.

twv

Tags , , , ,
Categories criticism, Film

So Crazy?

December 13, 2023 //
0

It is “so crazy,” said Alex Jones, “that I didn’t even see that coming.”

He wasn’t talking about his recent reinstatement onto X, the platform previously known as Twitter.

He was talking to Michael Malice about our leaders and how they approach war: “Now Biden comes out, with the Secretary of State and the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense and says, ‘Well, if you don’t give us 106 billion [dollars] more for the Ukraine war, your sons and daughters will be dying within months,’ so now they’re holding a nuclear war gun to our head, which is so crazy. . . .”

While Mr. Jones has earned a reputation for predicting the darnedest things, he’s most infamous for spewing crazy non-factuals — losing a lawsuit about calling mass shooting victims “crisis actors.” So, it sure sounds crazy, but is it true?

Well, in October, Biden requested $106 billion, “the bulk of the money going to bolster Ukraine’s defenses and the remainder split among Israel, Indo-Pacific and border enforcement,” according to Reuters. The breakdown:

  • $61.4 billion for Ukraine, including not quite a half a billion for Ukrainian refugees in the U.S.
  • $14.3 billion for Israel
  • $13.6 billion for the southern border with Mexico
  • $9.15 billion for humanitarian needs across Israel, Ukraine, Gaza
  • The rest for “migration and refugee assistance”

Early on, Congress expressed some reluctance. On Friday, the administration announced a big sale of arms to Israel, sans congressional approval. On Tuesday, the Defense Department defended its 53rd tranche of equipment to Ukraine as “a smart investment in our national security,” mentioning no congressional warrant. Instead, it admonished Congress to pass “the President’s national security supplemental request to ensure that Ukraine can consolidate and extend its battlefield gains.” 

The merest whiff of Jones’s accusation.

Last week’s visit of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stirred up a great deal of chatter, but the new Speaker of the House insisted that the White House provide “the clarity and the detail” on a winning strategy, and more oversight to go along with all the fortune demanded by the Pentagon.

Alex Jones’s contention, however, seems off. He seems to be exaggerating a warning by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III to House members that “failure to provide more aid for Ukraine could lead to Russia’s invasion of a NATO ally and a direct U.S. military response in accordance with the NATO treaty.” The secretary’s notion? If we let Ukraine fall, then Russia will go further and attack adjacent countries, and the U.S. is committed by treaty to fight on our allies’ side.

Not Ukraine’s.

That’s it. It’s the old domino theory. Pure speculation. 

Alex Jones seems wrong in detail. But the spirit? Maybe he’s right. There’s a kind of threat here, amplified by Biden and the Pentagon. They are trying to scare us into attacking first, before Russia attacks.

In other words: standard political behavior.

Crazy talk.

twv

Tags , , , ,
Categories Leaders/Demagogues/Führers, Social Media, Warfare & Strategy & Tactics

Fix the Standard

November 16, 2023 //
0

There should be silver thalers and gold dollars, and no attempt by any government to fix the exchange ratios — “regulate the Value” — of the two metals.

Just so, there should be two calendars: solar and lunar, and no attempt by government or conventional compromise to make the lunar calendar fit within the solar calendar with year-over-year consistency. Just as silver and gold are valued separately by supplies and demands, and must always be in flux — maintaining no constancy to warrant any “parity,” or fixed ratio, to provide stable measure over time — the solar and lunar cycles never line up to provide regularity between the two: every year the months change in relationship to the years.

Of course, human beings are no doubt thought to be too stupid to reconcile these unevennesses.

So the founding fathers gave to Congress the task of setting the values of two distinct monies while calendar-making popes and politicians have concocted elaborate compromise time-keeping standards. Both compromising efforts have led to bad consequences, monetary policy being the worst. But people like to pretend that things are more orderly than they are, and will create great disorder in the cause of their pretense.

People will put up with bad monetary policy for the same sort of reasons we put up with incredibly dumb calendars.

Most days I pretend not to care. After all, we humans do worse things.

twv

Tags , , , ,
Categories Basic Principles, Public Policy

Our Liberty to Speak

November 15, 2023 //
0

One might think “freedom of speech” would be a fairly clear thing, not at all difficult to understand, but it turns out: no. Even liberals have trouble defining what it is.

One problem arises from trying to be principled on the matter while also being very careless with the constituent concepts. Since most people rush around ideas with scarcely any attention to standards of reason, they often wind themselves into knots, ending up in a tangle.

This is especially the case with “free speech absolutists.”

These are the folks who are for free speech. And they think of themselves as principled. But they nevertheless tend to get very uncomfortable with a common counter-argument from clever censorious people: “even you support limits to free speech, for you would prosecute confidence men and seducers of children and shouters of ‘fire’ in crowded theaters; so your limits undermine the coherence to free speech — you’re just as pro-censorship as we, but you lack the honesty to admit it!”

 This is supposed to be a knock-down argument. I used to hear it all the time from conservatives. Now I hear it not infrequently from progressives. And with the ongoing Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip, we can expect to hear it from conservatives again — people who just a month ago decried cancel culture and reflexive cries of “racism” by the left, but who now demand that Israel’s critics be silenced, and that all those sympathetic with Palestinians be castigated as “anti-semites.”

But it is not a knock-down argument. It is barely an argument at all.

For the premise is wrong.

Free speech absolutists (and I’ll pretend to be one, since I’m often so called) do not support limits to freedom of speech. Or, rather, they do not support limits to liberty. They support the limits of liberty. They support limits to speech.

Which is not contradictory. Not at all.

How?

Free speech isn’t all speech; free speech is itself a limit. Freedom of speech is a term of art for the speech that liberty allows; speech involving actual crime — in planning or merely commanding — has always been (and should now be) illegal. Some things marchers say is not free speech, and many marches amount to trespass. 

The key issue is property rights. I have freedom of speech in my home; you have freedom of speech in yours. But I don’t have the same freedoms in your home, and you don’t have your full freedoms in mine. Likewise, when we go out into the nearby park on a sunny day, with children all around, we might expect that the owners of the park — whether they be the Kiwanas or the county — would insist on some limits to our wildest locutions. In private you and I might swear upon the old gods and the new, talk of fucks and shits and the curious “two-word phrase” that Jack Woodford wrote about in Home Away from Home (1962). But in this more public place, those words and phrases should surely be anathema, and our protests on grounds of “freedom of speech” utterly ridiculous.

The issue here is the same as that of liberty itself. 

Particular freedoms can be imagined in many contexts. But in society the relevant freedoms aren’t unlimited; your freedom limits my actions and my freedom limits yours. What must be limned are the boundaries, and we come to understand the importance of a blanket prohibition on the initiation of force, the valorization of the use of defensive force, and the primacy of property rights in drawing boundaries on scarce resources (amidst vast vistas) to allow us to live in harmony, even where we strongly disagree. Liberty is the freedom that can be had by all. And we must not seek limits to liberty, but the limits of liberty. At base, those limits of liberty are the basic freedoms of all from initiations of force.

Same goes for freedom of speech: demand not limits to free speech, but figure out, instead, the limits on speech that liberty provides.

twv

See also: “Freer Speech,” May 4, 2018, and “Once Cool,” January 30, 2022.

Tags , , ,
Categories Basic Principles, Political Theory
« Older Entries