We'll get back to this topic. But first... in "Planetary Politics when the Nation-State Falters," in the next Noema Magazine, Nathan Gardels talks about power devolution from the "westphalian" stasis.
== Supply Side did supply… a rising oligarchy ==
"Fifty years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down even once:" David Hope of the London School of Economics examined 18 developed countries over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015 -- countries that slashed taxes on the wealthy vs. those that didn’t. Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn’t, the study found. The analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered without trickling down to the middle class…
...exactly as I have told you repeatedly Adam Smith himself both observed and predicted. (In the historical extreme case, the 1780s, the rich in France refused to let themselves be taxed, not even in order to save the nation that protected them… so it stopped protecting them and they rode tumbrels.)
“In fact, if we look back into history, the period with the highest taxes on the rich — the postwar period — was also a period with high economic growth and low unemployment.” Also vast infrastructure development and the best era, ever, for business startups and entrepreneurship.
The Capitalism vocabulary trap.
One of the worst aspects of today's absurd polemical wars is vocabulary. By attacking all "capitalism" the left destroys their cred, since highly regulated market enterprise has harnessed human creative competition vastly better than all other allocation systems from kingships to socialist/communist systems. Marx described how such market competitive systems CAN be destroyed by cheating, as described in Das Kapital. But Marx blithely assumed that failure mode was inevitable and the Rooseveltean era proved it's not.
Only back to the key point. GOPpers yammering about spendthrift Democrats 'breaking the bank' or 'sending deficits skyrocketing' are, of course, hypocrites whose party is always less fiscally responsible than Democrats, and I mean always* and can prove it in a large stakes wager.
One noted economist-pundit apologist for that monstrous movement said: "...let the implications sink in. Then remember this year’s recovery depended heavily on massive fiscal spending—stimulus payments, unemployment benefits, etc...."
Well... yeah... um wasn't that the point? As usual, neither he nor his rightist peers ever mention that the Dems' Keynesian stimulus measures are still smaller, in total, than the Republican's "supply side" attempts at stimulus! (Though tsunami tax gifts to the rich.)
With this difference:
Those Supply Side lamprey-sucks realized zero predicted outcomes - (in science, or any non-cult, that outcome is disqualifying) - while plummeting money velocity and sending wealth disparities and deficits skyrocketing. At French-Revolution levels of disparity, the rich soak up all real estate and flaunt purchases of nonexistent art.
Keynesian stimuli simply work, especially when enacted by sincere Keynesians who pay down debt in good times, like Jerry Brown, Bill Clinton and Gavin Newsom. Working class wealth, well-being and spending have risen, manufacturing is in-shoring, money velocity rising, tax revenues climbing. More will do more. There certainly is some risk of inflation, but not post-Vietnam-style stagflation.
Only here's the key point that no rightist pundit has the honesty to mention... and those poor-dumb-schlump democrats are to stupid to mention. The amounts of 'stimulus' done across recent decades by Republican Supply Side cultists and now by liberal Keynesians are roughly the same!
I repeat -- The amounts of 'stimulus are roughly the same. With spectacularly different outcomes.
Any 'pundit' who neglects to point this out is stunningly dishonest. Or... as I've said... a sincere and honest and politically stoopid Democrat.
49 comments:
The very word 'Republican' is a total misnomer. Anyone who's read Gibbon, or even Asimov, knows that.
Is still like "predator class" defined as those who cheat to get disproportionate power and wealth.
*Of course*, higher taxes don't really have the incentive destroying effects that the supply-side type accounts suggest because those accounts make the foundational error of modeling people's utility as dependent only on their own consumption. But it's easy to see this is mistaken simply by considering the demand for expensive hand-made goods and their counterfeits. If people simply wanted those features they'd not care if it was subtly counterfeit. But once you realize that a huge part of the incentives for the very rich are about displaying their *relative* status then (absent tax avoidance and moving abroad) it becomes clear that as long as your marginal tax rate is low enough that the CEO can buy nicer shit than the CFO they'll still be plenty of incentive to produce.
But, to quibble a bit, it would be better if you didn't conflate fiscal stimulus with Kensianism since Keynsianism is a relatively specific account of how (via the multiplier) when and to what extent fiscal stimulus is helpful. Plenty of sophisticated economists are quite supportive of fiscal stimulus at the right times who would absolutely deny that Keynes got it substantially correct. In particular, I'd argue that the mere fact that people *expect* a fiscal stimulus to improve the economy is itself as stimulating as the actual money sent out in the modern economy (with credit cards) where very little is being purchased by people literally cash constrained.
The present day conservative is better referred to as a 'self-servative'.
It may be worthwhile postulating that affluence attracts, and that the best way to get worth out of money is to do what you do with masses in a gravity well.
In the last thread, Catfish'n'Cod brought up another vocabulary trap: "Liberty"/"Freedom". Specifically private-liberty vs mutual-liberty.
I always find it interesting that even the Ur-example of "rights" doesn't survive a single step of analysis: "My right to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose." Okay, but if my fist contacts your nose, who was responsible? Me for swinging my arm, or you for putting yourself in harms way. If it's me, then you've placed the burden of protecting your face on everyone but you. The moral hazard is obvious. But if you are responsible for protecting yourself, then I have no limits, since every time I hit you, it's your fault. Might-makes-right. The reality is that we both share responsibility, with apportionment depending on the details of the situation, under a system that must be previously agreed. And between people who haven't personally met, can only work if there's a shared system of collective rights imposed on both by society in general. Even the child-level example of "freedom" devolves into "agreed system of rights, requiring agreed constraints on freedom" within a single step.
--
Also from the last thread:
matthew,
Re: The slow response of Nat.Guard on Jan 6.
The DoD and intelligence services had previously reported on the tendency of themselves and FBI/police to constantly overestimate the threat from left-wing and non-white activists, to constantly underestimate the threat from right-wing and white-supremacist activists, and to misallocate resources correspondingly. Both domestically and internationally.
But these reports never change their behaviour on the ground, never change the allocation of resources, never change policy.
(This is above and beyond any efforts by the Trump administration to actually try to recruit the military in their coup.)
The very word 'Republican' is a total misnomer.
Is it?
They see themselves as citizens of a Republic. They see everyone else (ie. all non-Republicans) as not citizens. Consider how Romans treated non-Romans during the Republic.
In the last thread, I tried to post something that got eaten. I'll skip the links this time:
Most of you are familiar with KIC8462852, aka Boyajians Star, aka Tabby's Star. It experiences weird periodic deep dips in brightness.
A new paper by Edward G. Schmidt has trawled though archives of observations to find stars that exhibit similar deep dips in brightness. There's a random scattering, but (Schmidt claims) the majority of candidates are in a statistically significant cluster within 1000ly of Boyajian's Star.
If you search John Michael Godier's channel on YouTube, he's done a recent video on it. And the link to the paper is in that video's description.
Obviously, it's sparked a new burst of "alien megastructure" hysteria.
Well, it's harder to win elections under the "Greedy Oligarchic Party" banner. Remember, even in Roman times every Caesar was publicly for restoring the Republic.
Pappenheimer
A while back, one of the resident libertarians here said everyone was responsible for their own self defense. He then bristled when I characterized libertarians as "If you can't compete, die." Since he probably needs this better explained, many people don't have the resources or skills to compete in the self defense arena. Many of us would rather spend the 100ish hours a year needed to get and maintain those skills doing something elae.
It's "conservative" that's a misnomer. They do not conserve: not life, nor liberty, nor happiness, nor property, nor equality, nor honor, nor decency, nor rule of law. Their very name for themselves is a Big Lie.
To be fair: "liberals" do not liberate, "progressives" make no progress, "libertarians" are really propertarians, and "evangelicals" are bad news.
Paul451 - Yes, our "protector caste" exists to protect the wealthy and privileged and not the poor, liberal, or non-white among us.
Here's an article about a former US Vet that went undercover in the KKK, and found a very high percentage of police and corrections officers in their midst. He states very clearly that the agency he reported to did not want to deal with the ramifications of his findings:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/22/us-army-vet-fbi-kkk
Back to the 1/6 coup attempt, Micheal Fanone, former Capitol Police officer, had this to say when he recently quit to go work for CNN, “Clearly there are some members of our department who feel their oath is to Donald Trump and not to the Constitution.”
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/586688-dc-police-officer-beaten-during-jan-6-attack-resigns
Fanone has stated in his Congressional testimony that his current leadership are not taking the possibility of another attack on Congress seriously enough.
SecDef Austin ordered a stand down for all troops (including Coast Guard, which are DoHS, not DoD) to clarify his stance on extremism in the ranks. But he does not consider simple membership in anti-government militias like the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys to be reason enough to purge troops out of the service. Only statements or actions that are clearly sedition are being considered, and commanding officers get to make the determination of what "extremism" is exactly.
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2492530/austin-orders-military-stand-down-to-address-challenge-of-extremism-in-the-ranks/
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/02/03/defense-secretary-orders-60-day-stand-down-to-confront-extremism-in-the-military/
Until the DoD, police, and intelligence start taking the threat to our nation from domestic enemies seriously we are all at risk.
Except rich, white, and conservative folks, of course.
Our left wing is out in force, today, it seems. While much of what pardoctor said is true... it is BS re liberals and progressives.
Matthew offers interesting observations.
DG is being entirely unfair. Yes, Lockean liberalism creates government in part to free most folks from the predation that would otherwise distract us from our positive sum efforts and specializations. And yet... we are still fundamentally responsible to keep an eye on each other. A flat fair cociety and accountable government should ENABLE you to hold others reciprocally accountable.
Robert:
They [Republicans] see themselves as citizens of a Republic. They see everyone else (ie. all non-Republicans) as not citizens.
That's the whole point of disagreement. Republicans are nominally in favor of freedom and liberty and the protections of the Constitution, but they are very restrictive about who actually enjoys those rights and protections. In that, they are wrong, and I mean factually wrong. The Constitution by way of the Fourteenth Amendment makes clear that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, and that naturalization is available to others. Nowhere in the founding documents is the US declared to be a blood-and-soil homeland for white northern Europeans, or a Christian nation.
By the letter of the law, all citizens have equal rights and responsibilities and protections. What is at stake is what Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said upon being asked what form of government had been decided in 1787, "A republic, if you can keep it" (emphasis mine).
Discussing a way to refer to today in relation to Christmas. I called it "Christmas Eve Eve", which my nerd brain immediately took to "Christmas Eve-squared". But my daughter decided it was more appropriate to call it "Christmas Adam".
Dr Brin:
While much of what pardoctor said is true... it is BS re liberals and progressives.
I was going to say something like that. Liberals certainly do liberate--from forced conformity if nothing else. And progressives only "don't make progress" in the sense that they fail to do so. There's a difference between failing to accomplish a stated goal vs having a very different agenda from one's stated goals.
The world's most-celebrated holiday... New Years (secular) ... is 8 days after the birth of a Jewish boy. The whole world celebrates his circumcision.
Dr Brin:
New Years (secular) ... is 8 days after the birth of a Jewish boy.
Seven, actually. But who's counting? :)
You INCLUDE the date of birth, silly.
Whoever it was a few days/weeks back who was ready to let Republicans win because Biden "betrayed" students on college loans has to find a new excuse to hate on Democrats.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2021/Senate/Maps/Dec23.html#item-7
Yesterday, Joe Biden announced that people with a federal student loan would not have to make any loan payments until May 1, 2022. That decision affects 27 million people, most of them U.S. citizens above 18 (i.e. eligible voters). Biden, of course, is hopeful that they remember his help on Election Day. He could extend the loan pause again if he wants to.
Dr Brin:
You INCLUDE the date of birth, silly.
Yes, I know that's how Jesus could rise from the dead "on the third day" after Good Friday.
But you didn't say "on the eighth day". You said "eight days after...". And it's not.
Then consider my snark to be a challenge: for liberals to visibly liberate and for progressives to make visible progress. After all, we're the evidence-based faction.
But maybe you agree that conservatives are destructive, libertarians are only interested in property rights, and the bringers of good news are themselves bad news.
My question is: why the reversal? And how to avoid the reversing process?
Paradoctor asks "then why the reversal"?
Answer is simple. The reversal is entirely in your head, propelled by a sanctimonious need to discredit those doing the hard, grinding work of pushing a boulder uphill against a ruthless world oligarchy's cheating and an enflamed confederacy... while splitters like you do none of the work and yowl at them for being evil because they aren't pushing hard enough.
There is not a thing I just said that is an exaggeration.
@Larry Hart
Thanks for the succinct rebuttal to the Republican thing. It's a very different agenda, in fact, the opposite agenda. Today, a yarmulke-wearing acquaintance who knows of my fundamentalist Christian to enlightened Asimovian life path asked how I give season's greetings. I said I'm becoming fond of "Shorten the Darkness".
I really do agree. If we structured the laws and social mores of our society to make it possible for everyone to live the good life, we wouldn't need individual self defense.
Paradoctor:
But maybe you agree that conservatives are destructive, libertarians are only interested in property rights, and the bringers of good news are themselves bad news.
I do. I was disagreeing with the bothsiderism. Right-wingers are hypocritical. That doesn't automatically imply that the opposition perpetrate equal-and-opposite hypocricy.
My question is: why the reversal?
Good question. My perception is that they're experiencing two sides of the same coin at this period of history. One is the sense that this is their chance to grab and hold onto power without winning in the democratic process. The other is that it might be their last chance to grab and hold onto power before losing it forever in the democratic process. So they're willing to do whatever it takes to grab that power, democracy be damned.
And how to avoid the reversing process?
The reason so many of us are feeling disheartened is precisely because we can't see any specific tactic which would lead to that reversal. It might come down to war, but that would be after the fact--after they've already pulled off a nominal win of elections by cheating. I'd rather it not be a shooting war, but more of a general strike, refusing to participate in the decorum respecting their power grab. Which is exactly what they say they're doing now, btw.
Then consider my snark to be a challenge: for liberals to visibly liberate and for progressives to make visible progress. After all, we're the evidence-based faction
Well, my niece can legally marry her girlfriend, which couldn't happen when I was her age. Marijuana is legal now, while it would get you a criminal record when I was a kid. A lot of people are actually taking climate change seriously, while a couple of decades ago it was mostly activists who worried about it. I see ads with mixed couples no, while even a few years ago it seemed like all couples colour-sorted for advertisements…
I would call all of that progress.
The Constitution by way of the Fourteenth Amendment makes clear that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, and that naturalization is available to others. Nowhere in the founding documents is the US declared to be a blood-and-soil homeland for white northern Europeans, or a Christian nation.
By the letter of the law, all citizens have equal rights and responsibilities and protections.
Well, your Constitution was OK with half the population not voting for a considerable time after the 14th Amendment was ratified. And I'm old enough to remember when women needed male co-signers for bank loans (and that was legal).
I've been reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and the early Republic sounds like what a lot of modern Republicans want — very restrictive voting rights, etc. They put down Shay and cohorts, after all, who wanted no taxation without representation.
So I think they really do want a republic — just not the kind of republic you want, more like what America used to be.
I keep rereading "Spock's World" in the bathroom, and have become appreciative of one of Surak's (the founder of Vulcan logic) aphorisms as submitted by Diane Duane: "Reduce entropy, if possible; if not possible, attempt to not increase it."
I'm the last person to defend the Trump Administration, but ...
If the goal was to invoke the Insurrection Act, the White House would have been screaming at the Pentagon and the National Guard for troops, not keeping silent for hours. Once the troops were there, anything could have happened. And right now, we would all be quietly whispering among ourselves about the brilliant false flag operation that destroyed our democracy.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20. I doubt they will make the same mistakes again.
Let's hope for different mistakes next time. And there likely will be a next time.
Brin:
We do agree that 'conservatives' are destructive. Also that, whatever you think of Christianity, the political Christians do not preach a recognizable version of it. Neither of these reversals are in our heads, or an exaggeration. So I ask again: why these reversals?
Paradoctor did I misread your earlier comment? It appeared to me that you were saying that 'liberals" and "progressives" had "reversed" their earlier intentions and vigorous activity to strive to make a better world. If that was what you meant, it was hallucinatory drivel propelled by unmerited and uearned sanctimony.
But perhaps I mis-read you. I actually hope that is the case, because I'd rather respect you and admit an error than be right about you believing such hogwash.
I do not see a reversal of intentions by liberals and progressives, but a reversal of fortune. Conversely, the quote conservatives unquote have had good fortune, but a reversal of intentions. Different reversals, I grant. Do they have anything in common and if so then what?
Perhaps along the lines of: power from serving oligarchs is dangerous to reject, and more dangerous to accept.
But recall the property-rights-only libertarians and the counter-Christian Christianists; they too reverse themselves, intellectually. I suspect that the corruption of power goes beyond rotten dealing. Power itself does something to a person's head. Power turns up into down.
I observe from a British perspective constrained by my fundamental dislike of politics. The way it is practiced where words mean nothing or everything.
Political conversations devolve to edge cases, and what is said is often not what is meant.
That said, I watch the discussions and analyze the behaviours as best I can to construct motives and assumptions. So here is one I'll offer. A military coup in the US is highly unlikely, and arguing that it will happen verges on hysteria (and as most commentators here are men that is ironic-psychology black joke).
To support my assertion I offer this quote:
Comment: "The idea of rogue units organizing among themselves to support the “rightful” commander in chief cannot be dismissed."
Reply: "If you have begun to wonder if these men don’t understand their nation, you can also see they don’t understand the people in the US military that well either. They need to get out more.
Their premise is paranoid fantasy at best, intentional alarmism at worst. The overwhelming percentage of the US population has little direct contact with people in their military. Well-meaning people on the left who are predisposed to this narrative in the opinion piece are being intentionally misled. This is beyond irresponsible."
From here: https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2021/12/heres-your-worrisome-military-culture.html
This take may of course be wrong, but it is more likely, on the balance of probabilities that the emotional fervour of those who like to express their opinions to drown out thoughts from others they can't tolerate is what drives the current brouhaha of political outrage.
As always, your mileage may vary.
On that note, I wish a Merry Christmas (or whatever) to one and all.
I think "reversed" is way too strong a word, but I think they've become overly pessimistic on matters of political feasibility of populist economic policy. They've bought into the "America is a center-right nation" repeat-until-true meme relentlessly promoted by media types, especially the likes of Chuck Todd and his NASCAR dad beard.
Well said, Ashley. And you can help with the gender imbalance here by recruiting, maybe? ;-)
Paradoctor, so I did misread your "reversal" of liberalism... though clearly since you had two meanings, my misunderstanding was your fault. Ah well.
Fact is, the confederates have been winning by cheating and never by majorities in large measure because they are very tightly disciplined and stay on message... while democrats are harder to herd than cats. Guys like you will leap at any excuse to flounce away from the only coalition that stands a chance of stopping this madness and allowing the sane US majority to govern.
You did it in 68, 80, 88, 94, 2000, 2010 and 2016 and your lot have openly declared your intention to betray Biden, who has earned your vigorous loyalty and support, in 2022 and 2024.
If he proves himself in a dozen areas, you will pick a 13th to scream at. If he falls short in BBB you'll blame him rather than your own failure to act to lure borderline Republicans back into the realm of facts and light. You will chant that voters in deep red states and districts will suddenly reverse and vote for pink leftists if only we just push far left messages at them hard enough.
I make this prediction with sad but utter confidence. It is the bane of our enlightenment and will lose us this phase of the Civil War.
democrats are harder to herd than cats
It can be done, though…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE
(David, you've probably seen it, but thought you could use a laugh right now if you haven't.)
Robert funny thing, I was thinking about that video just hours ago.
A bit perplexed by the 'lurkers' in EXISTENCE. Isn't that pretty much what I was on about two years ago when OGH insisted that searching for such stuff was not viable SETI? (I think I was suggesting automated probes).
Truly doubt I said any such thing, since I am relentlessly on-record supporting lurker seaches as the most likely-successful form of SETI. Perhaps scidata mis interprested? It happens.
Yes, scidata misinterpreting is always a strong possibility. A 1978 Commodore PET has a better memory bank. Back then, I said that we don't know enough yet and we've barely begun a physical survey of our little corner of the galaxy. Space archaeology isn't even in its infancy yet. The concept in EXISTENCE that physical 'inscribed pellets' might be a far better way of spreading knowledge than radio broadcasts make a lot of sense. The recent NASA initiative to make everyone a prospector does too. IIRC, the issue was that the FERMI question doesn't hang on such a search; if they're out there, we should know by now. The oldest bone that OGH and I tussle over.
The last 1/3 of Existence also deals with more old fashioned lurker styles.
On Existence, I'm reminded of something that I don't want to spoil for anyone who hasn't read the book yet, but I'm not sure I can describe it completely without a spoiler. So anyone who hasn't read the book and wants to may want to stop reading this post now.
*** POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW ***
There's a recurring posts by a character with "Birdwoman" in her name. I had begun to suspect that she was in fact a curious lurking alien, perhaps one with avian physical characteristics. After four readings, I'm not sure about this, but I'm pretty sure we found out that no, she's just a human being, albeit one of the many autistic characters in the book. But I'm also pretty sure the suspicion was intentional on the part of the author--that I as the reader was meant to have that particular doubt raised.
Do I err?
Interesting though, Larry H. In fact, I never meant for Birdwoman to be anything other than one of the aliens-among-us... a deeply autistic person who - unlike all previous generations - is empowered by new technology to flower into great ability and even greatness. Anyway, Temple Grandin like the book and gave it a blurb!
As my Latin teacher used to say, "Peace on Earth to men of good will." The rest of y'all are on your own. (He also thought that English needed a new 2nd person plural.)
Pappenheimer
Christopher Fry's "The Lady's Not For Burning" has some good lines.
"Peace on Earth and good tall women."
All y’all have a wonderful holiday, y’hear? 8)
The word you are looking for are oligarchy, cheat-aristocracy and feudalism.
Talk about a vocabulary trap: The above words are imprecise, as is the 'Supply Side economics' misnomer, as a more accurate descriptor of the West's economic, scientific and political malaise is 'Rule by & for the exclusive benefit of the elderly', also known as 'Gerontocracy'.
People over 50 make up 34 percent of the U.S. population, but 52 percent of the electorate, according to Pew. And it’s not only political power that baby-boomers and the Silent Generation have a tight grip on: Americans over 55 own two-thirds of the wealth in this country.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/gerontocracy-is-hurting-american-democracy.html
Oligarchy, cheat-aristocracy and feudalism are euphemisms for the Tyranny of the Old which (in turn) has little or nothing to do with economic models, conservatism, progressivism or political affiliation.
Our leaders & visionaries are irredeemably old, even the ones that our good host labels as 'progressive': Nancy Pelosi is 81, Diane Feinstein is 87 and Joe Biden is 79. These people are so ancient that you'd have to be delusional to believe that they represent 'our future'.
https://www.oldest.org/politics/members-us-congress/
OK, boomer. With our terms defined, the time has come for us to admit that the enemy to further human progress is us, the Baby Boomers & their elders. The Boomer 'we' are the so-called evil feudalists and oligarchs who (1) represent 34% of the US population, (2) make up 52% of the voting electorate and (3) own 2/3 of all of the wealth in our country.
We Baby Boomers are the ones who hold our society in a tightening death grip: We are the all-consuming monsters that are destroying our world, our climate & our children's future; we are the Greedy Rich that enlightened progressives like AOC want to eat; and we are morons who are so terrified of our own mortality that we have shut down the global economy because of a COVID threat that represents a significant risk only to the very old but not the young.
We have met the enemy to human progress and 'he is us', so much so that our only chance at a human renaissance (literally a 'rebirth') actually requires our imminent death.
This is the true meaning of both Christmas and the Winter Solstice, even though the most progressive amongst us deny it: The Winter Solstice is a recurring celestial event that signifies death, gestation, regeneration, and rebirth.
So, Merry Solstice to All, and to All a Goodnight.
Best
I was about to say "Who are you and what have you done with locumanch?" The 1st half of his posting cites a real problem. One borne of the Rooseveltean reforms that ended what had been an absolute nightmare of senior poverty.
Only then he dives into distracto idiotic nonsense about how the boomer saps - many of them brain poisoned from lead - are the 'oligarchy" instead of the loopy suckers for Foxite propaganda. Alas.
Okay then onward
onward
onward
Post a Comment