"THEIR" ---PLAYBOOK doesn't, hasn't , IS incapable of EVER changing ----"THEY" think alike--"THEY" only allow IN ---the SAME 'mindset' ..."THEY" R incapable of "THINKING OUTSIDE" the box :) & IT will B "THEIR" ultimate downfall :o
Last February United for Peace and
Justice, the largest representative coalition within the American
"anti-war movement", emerged from their second annual Assembly with a
2005 "action plan" that effectively caged the "anti-war"
debate exclusively within the Iraq conflict to achieve partisan ends on behalf
of the pro-war Democratic Party and their Neoliberal corporate benefactors.
Their "action plan" refused to address any of the core issues of US
Foreign and Defense policy, which are the root causes of a pervading culture of
war and militarism that has taken over the nation in the years since WWII.
These decisions are part of a larger
pattern of "regulated resistance", a system by which dissent is
carefully managed and constrained by self, overt, or covert censorship;
denial-based-psychology; fear of personal or professional criticism and
reprisal; and pressure from powers above including elected officials and those
establishment foundations which flood millions into the not-for-profit activist
sector.
This establishment money, and the
access it grants, has caused many ostensible resistance leaders to suddenly and
dramatically abandon long-held ideological positions and shift their behavior
towards doing what can clearly be seen as the bidding of those in power whose
views and values are in direct contravention to the established mores of peace
and justice movements throughout history.
These "resistance leaders"
of the "Left" act as "Gatekeepers"—influential
"progressive" figures who use their resources and visibility to
regulate the debate, tactics, and rhetoric of the "anti-war" and other
"progressive" movements.
The Gatekeepers of the So-Called
"Left"
"The press is the hired agent
of a moneyed system, set up for no other reason than to tell us lies where
their interests are concerned." — Henry Adams
In his shocking investigative report
"The Left Gatekeepers", journalist Bob Feldman researched purportedly
"Left" activist and media organizations that receive substantial
funding from large establishment foundations with known ties to the CIA, the
Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and even the much-maligned
Carlyle Group, the arms dealing "investment fund" featured in Michael
Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, of which GHW Bush, the Saudi royal family, and, at one
time, the Bin Laden family, are all equity partners.
The Foundation structure is used by
these organizations to funnel corporate and personal wealth into the
policy-making process. Foundations are tax-free, and contributions to
foundations are deductible from federal corporate and individual income taxes.
The Foundations themselves are not subject to federal income taxation, and they
control hundreds of billions of dollars of money that would normally go to pay
these necessary taxes.
Feldman asks, "Are the
interests of the people being served by 'dissidents' who are being subsidized
by the agencies of the ruling class whom they should be exposing? What does
this say about the motivations behind the Left establishment's ideological
warfare against conspiracy researchers, and their adoption of an increasingly
watered-down analytical view which fails to look closely at the inner power
structures and conspiracies of the ruling elite?"
Many of these "dissidents"
Feldman describes are members of the UFPJ Steering Committee, and he
specifically cites prominent peace activist Medea Benjamin, and Leslie Cagan,
the renowned anti-nuke activist who is now UFPJ's National Director.
Disproportionate Influence and a
Profound Conflict of Interest
Medea Benjamin and Kevin Danaher
co-founded the international human rights organization Global Exchange 17 years
ago. In that time they have been consistently clear and outspoken with their
views on war and Neoliberalism—more commonly known as corporate globalization.
Because of their combined intellectual acuity and renowned fearlessness,
Benjamin's media savvy, and the access they have been granted through some of
their more prominent benefactors such as the MacArthur Foundation and
billionaire financier George Soros, they have come to command a high level of
visibility in progressive politics.
Benjamin has fast made a name for
herself as a leading figure in the "anti-war movement" with
well-publicized media stunts at the Republican and Democratic Conventions,
disruptions of FCC and Congressional hearings, and frequent trips to the Middle
East to showcase the suffering of the Iraqi and Afghani people. She also
benefits from her proximity to well-known "progressive" leaders,
celebrities, and journalists. Alongside her Code Pink Women for Peace, and
Danaher's Green Festivals, Global Exchange has come to command a significant market
share in the larger peace and justice community, reaping enormous "street
cred" within the activist world.
Benjamin also wields a
disproportionate amount of weight within the Green Party of the United States,
having run for Senator of California on their ticket in 2000, and within the
anti-war umbrella group United for Peace and Justice, where she sits on their
Steering Committee and is arguably their most influential member. As testament,
Benjamin and her Global Exchange/Code Pink cadre were the authors of three of
the five proposals passed by UFPJ at the February Assembly.
But during the 2004 Presidential
campaign, Benjamin's message and tone began to shift dramatically into what
came to be known as the "ABB" movement—Anybody But Bush. She and
eighty fellow prominent leaders who once formed the one hundred-thirteen member
"Nader 2000 Citizens Committee" put forth a petition urging anti-war
Nader not to run, and instead threw their support behind pro-war Democratic
Party candidate John Kerry. At the Green Party National Convention in Milwaukee
last June Benjamin campaigned heavily for "safe-state" candidate
David Cobb, who was also unabashedly ABB and even initially pledged not to run
in swing states, though he now denies it. Benjamin cajoled Greens into neither
nominating Nader nor giving him the official endorsement he and running mate
Peter Camejo had publicly sought from the party.
The pro and con arguments of ABB
have been argued exhaustively, and many do not find the issue relevant any
longer. But they are relevant when considering just how UFPJ became ABB and has
since found itself embroiled in partisan politics working to attack exclusively
the Bush Administration and their competing Neoconservative movement, despite
the fact that American war policy is a bipartisan program.
Leslie Cagan's Pacifica Foundation
is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (which was recently taken over by what has been described as a
"Right Wing coup"), the Rockefeller-funded Working Assets group, and
the ubiquitous George Soros. Like PBS, the Pacifica Network recently went
through a takeover drama where a cabal of Board members attempted to sell the
station off to center-mainstream corporate interests. Cagan is also reportedly
connected to the right-wing Ford Foundation, which funnels money to her through
a Lesbian advocacy group known as Astraea.
Peace Action, which describes itself
as "the nation's largest grassroots peace group" that "gets
results," is funded in part by a Working Assets grant. Both Peace Action
and Working Assets gave UFPJ a combined total of $45,000 for their 2003
operating budget (the last year UFPJ published their financial statements,
something they are required by law to do annually). UFPJ also received a
$151,000 grant from the Funding Exchange, a network of social justice
foundations throughout the United States that gives money to progressive
organizations.
What outrages many of those within
the activist community who are aware of these funding sources is that these so-called
"dissidents" would consent to take money from these foundations given
the long and voluminous history they have as part of the war-making
establishment.
In his book Trading with the Enemy,
Charles Hingham documents how both the Rockefeller and Ford fortunes were
enhanced in part through collaboration with Nazi Germany, the Rockefellers by
selling the Nazis oil through the Standard Oil Company, and the Fords by
selling the Nazis tanks through subsidiary corporations (note: the only
industrial infrastructure spared in the Allied bombing of Germany was the Ford
Motors plant near Cologne). Both Standard Oil (eventually Amoco) and the Ford
Motor Co. made huge profits from Defense contracts following WWII. Since 1950 a
Rockefeller has held a prominent leadership position in the Council on Foreign
Relations, and David Rockefeller was cofounder of the Trilateral Commission.
Both organizations helped craft the "Carter Doctrine" of the late
1970s which stated that the US would heretofore intervene militarily to protect
its oil supply from the Middle East.
The Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR) has been the historical driving force behind such bedrock institutions of
corporate globalization as the United Nations, World Bank, International
Monetary Fund, Word Trade Organization, and NATO, and which Esquire magazine
referred to in 1962 as "that part of the Establishment that guides our
destiny as a nation." In 1950, the Chicago Tribune published a story on
the CFR in which they stated, "[the members] have used the prestige that
their wealth, their social position, and their education have given them to
lead their country towards bankruptcy and military debacle. They should look at
their hands. There is blood on them—the dried blood of the last war and the
fresh blood of the present one."
Billionaire George Soros, who refers
to himself as a "progressive philanthropist", has since 1995 been
part of the arms-dealing Carlyle Group, in which he has invested a reported
$100 Million, and has substantial stock holdings in weapons manufacturers
Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. He is a member and former Director of the CFR, and
is a member of the enigmatic Bilderberg Group, a collection of approximately
1300 of the world's richest and most powerful figures in business, banking, media,
military, and government, who meet once a year in extreme secrecy and under
almost unfathomable security, and whose official purpose and actions remain a
mystery, spurring a deluge of wide-ranging speculation.
The 353-member American contingent
of Bilderberg is a bipartisan cavalcade that includes Paul Wolfowitz, David
Rockefeller, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, Vernon Jordan, Melinda Gates, Bill
Clinton, and Alan Greenspan. It is long argued and well documented that the
mission of this organization, working in conjunction with the Council on
Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, is to manipulate world
governments and economies to promote a global, capitalist agenda commonly
referred to as the "New World Order". These supranational bodies seek
to dismantle national sovereignty (through mechanisms such as "Free
Trade" agreements) in favor of a one-world government which primarily
upholds the rights of corporations and the wealthy over the people.
This connection begs the question:
How much influence does Soros and his ilk have over Benjamin et al, and, by
proxy, the "anti-war movement"? Is this relationship the reason
Benjamin has dropped the anti-Globalization rhetoric and instead become
immersed in partisan wrangling over the Bush Administration and the war in
Iraq? Is this the reason she has adopted a "blowback" stance with
regards to 9/11 and the resultant "War on Terror"? At the UFPJ
Assembly, Benjamin abstained from voting on the 9/11 Truth proposal, and
afterwards explained her abstention by claiming she was "afraid a vote for
the proposal would mean that UFPJ would have to work with certain 'difficult
people' involved in the 9/11 Truth movement."
It is unfortunate Benjamin cannot
bring herself to work with "difficult" people (even though it is
doubtful she is even aware of just who is and is not a recognized credible
member of 9/11 Truth). Because of the nature of 9/11 research, it sadly finds
itself constantly infiltrated by the proverbial kook and various degrees of
disinformation, but Benjamin and UFPJ have taken an all-inclusive, monolithic
view of this very complex and diverse movement. It is even more unfortunate,
and some might argue tragic, that personal foibles take priority over justice
for the families of 3,000 people killed on that fateful day in September, and
the hundreds of thousands killed in the name of the "War on Terror"
as some form of retribution for 9/11. Unless, of course, it was not a personal
foible that influenced her decision to abstain, but something more direct, such
as a mandate from her funders, the threat of some form of professional backlash
or reprisal, or simple peer disapproval.
And perhaps the greatest insult to
injury is that she is now raising money for the (somewhat oxymoronic)
Progressive Democrats of America. As Ralph Nader's running mate Peter Camejo
wrote in an open letter to the Green Party, "In the fund appeal for the
PDA [Benjamin] says the PDA is not the Democratic Party. It is like saying the
Panama Canal is not Panama."
The Failed Obligations and Inexcusable
Denials of the "Left" Media
To offer a clear portrait of how
"regulated resistance" works within the "Left" or
"progressive" media, consider their steadfast refusal to report on or
organize around two of the most important incidents in modern American history
as pertains to our present situation—possible US government involvement in
9/11, and the relationship between the Bush family and the Nazi regime in
Germany.
Sins of Omission and Distortion:
9/11, and the Rubber Stamp
As mentioned throughout this
article, the first and perhaps greatest failure of the "anti-war
movement" is the shameful irresponsibility the "Left" has shown
by their refusal to challenge the "official" story behind 9/11.
Bob Feldman writes:
Not surprisingly, the rank and file didn't
buy into the hype—nor were many convinced by the gatekeepers' offhand,
passionless calls for an official investigation. Interest in alternative 9/11
reporting continued to grow, and by the time that members of 9/11 victim's
families began publicly demanding an end to the government cover-up and even
mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times were admitting that the
lack of an independent investigatory commission was "extraordinary,"
the Left media gatekeepers backed down and adopted a new tactic of silent
stonewalling and tacit support for the official story.
Despite widespread and
well-documented critiques that even "War on Terror" apologists
acknowledge, the corporate media has never once challenged the
"official" story. Instead, they gleefully lapped up the Osama theory
fed to it by the Bush Administration while the fires at Ground Zero were still
burning, and in the 18 months between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq settled
comfortably into its role as "Bush handmaiden and peace movement disciplinarian."
But the absence of any challenge to
this story from the "anti-war movement" is frankly disturbing on a
level that supersedes even the craven behavior of the corporate media. Although
the "Left" has no compunction attacking Bush and his Neoconservative
cabal, it consistently fails to see how the ongoing bipartisan validation of
the "official" story is the license the US Government takes to
continue their imperial ambitions through the chimera known as the "War on
Terror", and by proxy, the corporate neocolonialism occurring across the
globe.
The 9/11 Truth movement got a
fledgling chance to make its case to the "Left" on May 26th, 2004,
when, Amy Goodman, host of the flagship Progressive news source Democracy NOW!,
agreed to host prominent theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl
Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11. Her
decision followed a long and relentless "Waking Amy" campaign
organized by Emanuel Sferios of the 9/11 Visibility Project.
However, at the last minute, Goodman
abruptly and without explanation changed the format of the show from an
interview to a "debate," and brought in long-time
"anti-conspiracist" Chip Berlet. Berlet is not an expert on 9/11
research, and his group, Political Research Associates, is an alleged
"Left" organization that is funded in part by the Ford Foundation.
(It is interesting to note that "Chip" Berlet's full name is John
Foster Berlet. He was named after John Foster Dulles who, with his brother Allen,
designed the CIA for Harry Truman in 1947, and played a prominent role in
smuggling Nazis into America to help build the post-WWII American
"Defense" and Intelligence apparatus).
Despite their being a virtual
laundry list of inconsistencies to the "official" story, and documented
proof of government cover-up activity, the final product, "The New Pearl
Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind
The 9/11 Attacks," focused almost exclusively on a handful of weak
speculations made by French researcher Thierry Meyssan, not Griffin, about
aspects of the Pentagon strike. This well-worn tactic known as the "straw
man argument" is used by detractors to attack and undermine the weakest
part of an alternative theory in order to dismiss it and alienate the public
from the larger issue. If a journalist with otherwise flawless research happens
to have one bad assertion, the 90 per cent he or she got right is generally
ignored in favor of attaching the person to their one misstep. This tactic
presupposes in a "deductive" argument that the theory is only as
strong as the weakest link. Berlet tried to discredit Griffin by associating
him with Meyssan, even though Griffin stated clearly on the show that his book
merely compiled information from other researchers in order to raise questions
that made a solid case that the "official" was simply implausible.
By only choosing to focus on the
most difficult theories to believe—regardless of their potential merit—Goodman
and Berlet completely missed the point. Griffin stated quite clearly on the
program: "There are all sorts of possible theories as to what happened.
You don't have to come up with an alternative theory to show that the
'official' theory is very problematic."
Berlet countered by saying,
"It's not good to believe in conspiracies that cannot be proven by
available evidence." But this principle does not take into account the
prevalent role of cover-ups in these types of operations (such as this one
being perpetrated by the US Government), which prevents potentially
enlightening evidence from ever being examined. Some more notable examples
include the total failure of air defenses and the role of hijack-based
"war games" exercises taking place that morning, the admitted controlled-demolition
of Building 7 which had to have been pre-wired, all the steel from the Twin
Towers which was immediately shipped to China without being studied, all the
video footage of the Pentagon strike which was promptly seized by the FBI (even
though disclosure would have put an end to all the wild "no plane, missile
strike" theories of Meyssan and others), and the notes from the now
infamous closed-door Bush/Cheney "visit" with the 9/11 Commission,
which were promptly confiscated.
Berlet's approach to discrediting
"conspiracy theory" reinforces what can be called the
"disbelief" factor, as in "I just can't believe that the Bush
Administration/US Government/Americans/people would do such a thing!"
Although this knee-jerk emotional response is understandable and easily
explainable within the context of human psychology, it does not amount to a
logical defense of the "official" story. In the absence of any
substantive debate, another psychological factor operated alongside the
"disbelief" factor: As Griffin states, "the Bush administration
created a halo over 9/11, so it became not only unpatriotic, but almost
sacrilegious to raise any questions." The "anti-war movement"
and "Left" media, ostensibly dissident by nature and thus obliged to
question, instead pulled right into lockstep with the government and corporate
media, rubber-stamping the "official" version of events.
Griffin did end up writing a lengthy
response to Berlet's misleading critique, but the damage had already been done.
Goodman never really inquired beyond the "straw man" arguments Berlet
kept pounding, and no other "Left" media outlet with the audience of
Democracy NOW! has touched the story since.
It is important to note that
Democracy NOW! was awarded a $75,000 Ford Foundation grant in 2002 "to
continue incorporating the aftermath of the September 11th attack into future
broadcasts," and received a further $150,000 from Ford in 2004.
Emanuel Sferios says the Ford
Foundation does not have to explicitly tell Democracy NOW! how they want 9/11
to be covered. He explains that "Democracy NOW! will simply self-censor,
because they want future money from the Ford Foundation. It's also important to
note that Amy Goodman coined a new, pejorative phrase to dismiss the 9/11 Truth
Movement. She is the first in history, as far as I know, to refer to us as a
"conspiracy theory movement."
The most glaring irony in all of
this is that it was Goodman herself who uttered these words:
"I think the media has reached
an all-time low in this country. And that is a terrible violation of what our
profession is supposed to do. We are supposed to hold those in power
accountable. We're not supposed to cozy up to those in power, not supposed get
the perks of the powerful. We are supposed to be there to, if not keep the
politicians honest, show what's going on. And it is very serious now because
we're talking about wartime... And when the media acts as a conveyer belt for
the lies of the administration, we not only are violating our responsibility,
but those lies take lives."
Furthering these sins of omission
regarding 9/11 is the "Left's" refusal to address any of the
voluminous evidence uncovered by controversial journalist Michael Ruppert in
his book Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of
the Age of Oil.
Ruppert's investigation, the most
thorough of any effort thus far including the Kean Commission, has been
publicly attacked more than any other independent effort, which for many is a
testament to its effectiveness.
In what seemed like a coordinated
effort, David Corn and Norman Solomon, purported "Left" journalists,
through The Nation and Pacifica Radio, repeatedly pilloried Ruppert for almost
two years before his book was released—without once addressing the evidence
presented. The sum total of their response to Rubicon was to engage in a series
of ad hominem attacks portraying Ruppert as mentally unstable. Although Ruppert
is an impassioned, domineering, even frequently alienating character with a
classic type-A personality (perhaps he could be described as
"difficult"?) who has very little patience for those who question his
work, he is anything but insane, and his personality is not all that different
from many of the personalities we have been discussing. What is never taken
into consideration when discussing his "psychology", however, is that
Ruppert has a lot of reason to be sensitive about the issue of government
corruption and malfeasance. Multiple attempts have been made on his life for
trying to expose CIA and LAPD complicity in the South Central crack-cocaine
trade. Anyone familiar with the history of disinformation tactics will
recognize the Corn/Solomon attacks as a tried and true method of discrediting
not only an author or researcher, but an entire line of investigation.
It should be noted that the
MacArthur-funded Nation, for which Corn is a staff writer, has ties back to the
CIA and its former director William Casey, and the Manhattan Institute, and
Chief Editor Katrina vanden Heuval's father was involved in "Operation Mockingbird",
a CIA project originating in the early days of the Cold War to buy influence
behind the scenes at major media outlets and put reporters on the CIA payroll.
Solomon is the Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy in Washington and
is the ostensible head of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), funded by
the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, Working Assets group, and the Shumann
Foundation.
A Story That Would Outrage
Anyone—But No One Knows About
The "Left" has also
consistently refused, on any level, to report or act on the established
connection between the Bush Family and the Nazi Party during the 1930's, 40's,
and early 50's.
John Buchanan, the charismatic,
relentless independent journalist from Miami wrote about his inability to get any
mainstream media source to pick up his New Hampshire Gazette story,
"Bush—Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951" in his 2004 book, Fixing
America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media, and the
Religious Right.
Even though Buchanan's reporting was
based on facts that came directly from declassified official documents
currently in the National Archives, not one single mainstream news source
agreed to even look at the government documents, which chronicled the long
history of collaboration between Bush's grandfathers Prescott Bush and George
Herbert Walker, Prescott Bush's employer A. Averell Harriman of Brown Brothers
Harriman, and Nazi industrialist and financier Fritz Thyssen. Between 1942 and
1951, under the "Trading with the Enemy Act," the US Government
seized 33 Bush-Harriman-Nazi businesses and client assets. But instead of
facing a firing squad for treason during war time, Prescott Bush pocketed $1.5
Million from the liquidation of the first and largest of the 33 businesses, the
Union Banking Corporation, principle investor in the Silesian-American
Corporation which used slave-labor from the Auschwitz concentration camp for
mining in Poland. None of the principles in the deal were ever brought to
justice.
This story should have resurfaced
every time one of the Bush men ran for or was appointed to public office.
Instead, it was spun relentlessly, and eventually buried. Only The Guardian of
London eventually picked up on this story in one subsequent article nearly a
year later titled, "How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to
power".
Buchanan goes on to say:
"Perhaps more troubling, and
certainly more surprising, not even left-leaning media, 'alternative media'
outlets, or media watchdog groups would touch the story. The Bush-bashing
editor of the Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and her assistant Peggy Suttles,
both declined to pursue the story... Don Hazen, a founder of alt-media online
syndicate, Alternet, also refused to report the story... Norman Solomon, a
regular op-ed contributor to The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los
Angeles Times, and Washington Post, initially agreed to help get the story out
"to the world" until he discovered that his four bread-and-butter
newspapers had all turned down the documents... Later, even the Center for
American Progress, a George Soros-funded liberal think tank in
Washington—headed by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta—would refuse to
acknowledge or help expose the Bush-Nazi connection."
(Ed's note: Alternet also refused to
consider this article for publication).
Although history tends to ignore it,
the United States' rise to global dominance was largely made possible by former
Nazis who were smuggled into the country during and after the war to work in
secret weapons labs, and lay the foundation for what would become the
controlled mass-media. Nazi scientists invented the technology for the jet
engine, the ballistic missile, the nuclear bomb, and other classified weapons
and surveillance technologies that both the Americans and the Soviets
appropriated for use in the Cold War.
These parent companies of the Left
Gatekeeper foundations became part of what Dwight D. Eisenhower coined in his
farewell address the "Military-Industrial Complex," which since the
end of WWII has expropriated an estimated $15 Trillion in American taxpayer
money for "Defense" spending. That, as author Joel Andreas notes,
"is more than the amount of money spent on all the existing man-made
wealth of the US: that is every building, highway, park, factory, car, and what
have you."
Conclusion: The Death of Authentic
Resistance
Michael Novick of the Anti-Racist
Action network has been around a long time, and has a list of bona fides pages
long. He has seen many an organization come and go, and he believes that the
501(c)3/NGO/not-for-profit corporate model has been the death of popular
movements and authentic resistance.
"Such organizations vacuumed up
the flotsam and jetsam of the resistance movements of the 60s and 70s, gave
them paid staff positions, and neutered them. This was true long before the
emergence of the current round of the 'anti-war movement'. It happened to the
women's movement and the Black and Chicano liberation struggles as far back as
the 70s. In the late 80s, most of the anti-racist projects that sprung up to
deal with the first wave of Neo-Nazism went the board and staff, grant-writing
model, with the result that they lost both their militancy and their
anti-establishment spark, making them politically irrelevant. Most went out of
business as other vogues took precedence with funders."
There is no doubt that this madness
must stop, and yet, where is the "anti-war movement" here when we
need them most? Not reading this article, for sure, even though it was written
for those who would attack just-cause critics of the "anti-war
movement", those who lament that they have no other funding options and
who can bring themselves to rationalize taking blood money, those who put their
own names and careers ahead of the people they purportedly represent—and for all
those who recognize this hypocrisy and want something more, something better.
Though it is difficult and may require sacrifice and even dismantling this
corrupted system, we must look at how our movements come to dance with the
devil, and turn into the very things that we once so despised.
Part 1 - Is it possible to change
the system when you are the system?
No comments:
Post a Comment