Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Study: How Breitbart Media's Disinformation Created the Paranoid, Fact-Averse Nation That Elected Trump


Democrats and progressives turned to wider and more reputable sources.

Right-wing media evolved into a hall of mirrors in 2016, when Breitbart displaced Fox News as the key agenda-setting and attack-leading epicenter of a disinformation-filled, paranoid ecosystem promoting Donald Trump and his pro-white America agenda.

Breitbart not only led the right?s obsessive, hostile focus on immigrants, it was also the first to attack professional reporting such as the New York Times and Washington Post. Breitbart's disruptive template fueled the political and information universe we now inhabit, where the right dismisses facts and embraces fantasies.

There is no corollary dynamic on the left or among pro-Clinton audiences in 2016. The left's news sources, media consumption and patterns of social media-sharing are more open-minded and fact-based and less insular and aggressive. Still, Breitbart?s obsessive focus on fabricating and hyping scandals involving Hillary Clinton (and Jeb Bush early in the primary season) pushed mainstream media to disproportionately cover its agenda.

These observations are among the takeaways of a major study from Columbia Journalism Review that analyzed 1.25 million stories published online between April 2015 and Election Day 2016. While the study affirmed what many analysts have long perceived?that right-wing media and those who consume it inhabit a paranoid and dark parallel universe?it also documented shifts in the right?s media ecosystem; namely, Breitbart supplanting Fox News as the leading purveyor of extreme disinformation.

?A right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart [has] developed as a distinct and insulated media system, using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world,? CJR wrote. ?This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.?

The CJR report said Americans? media consuming habits are ?asymmetric,? meaning those on the left?progressives and Democrats?rely on more diverse outlets and content, compared to the right.

?Pro-Clinton audiences were highly attentive to traditional media outlets, which continued to be the most prominent outlets across the public sphere, alongside more left-oriented online sites,? CJR wrote. ?But pro-Trump audiences paid the majority of their attention to polarized outlets that have developed recently, many of them only since the 2008 election season.?

The pro-Trump media specialized in what CJR called ?disinformation,? where facts are presented in isolation or stripped of context, and then exaggerated or hyped to produce false sense of alarm or crisis. This is more sophisticated than merely lying, they said.

?Rather than ?fake news? in the sense of wholly fabricated falsities, many of the most-shared stories can more accurately be understood as disinformation: the purposeful construction of true or partly true bits of information into a message that is, at its core, misleading,? CJR said. ?Over the course of the election, this turned the right-wing media system into an internally coherent, relatively insulated knowledge community, reinforcing the shared worldview of readers and shielding them from journalism that challenged it. The prevalence of such material has created an environment in which the President can tell supporters about events in Sweden that never happened, or a presidential advisor can reference a non-existent ?Bowling Green massacre.??

CJR's methodology looked at how the 1.25 million stories were shared or referenced online; e.g., if a person shared a story from Breitbart, what other sites was he likely to share or hyperlink to? CJR used an open source program called Media Cloud, which was developed for studying media at Harvard University and MIT.

The most frequently shared sources among Trump supporters, in descending order, were Breitbart, The Hill, Fox News, Gateway Pundit, Politico, Washington Examiner, Daily Caller, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times,, Conservative Treehouse, InfoWars, Daily Mail, Truthfeed, New York Post, Investors, the Right Scoop,, and Conservative Tribune.

The most frequently shared sources among Clinton supporters, in descending order, were Washington Post, Huffington Post, New York Times, The Hill, CNN, Politico, Politicus USA, Daily Kos, Raw Story,, MSNBC, Salon, Think Progress, Daily Newsbin, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, Daily Beast, Media Matters, NBC News and Vox.

Notably, there was virtually no middle ground. The most centrist news source, as measured by comparable volume of shares by Trump and Clinton supporters was the Wall Street Journal, CJR found.

?There are very few center-right sites: sites that draw many Trump followers, but also a substantial number of Clinton followers,? they said. ?Between the moderately conservative Wall Street Journal, which draws Clinton and Trump supporters in equal shares, and the starkly partisan sites that draw Trump supporters by ratios of 4:1 or more, there are only a handful of sites. Once a threshold of partisan-only attention is reached, the number of sites in the clearly partisan right increases, and indeed exceeds the number of sites in the clearly partisan left.?

Hyper-Partisan Disinformation

The emergence of a self-segregating, far-right media universe is a relatively recent development. This fractured and self-referencing ecosystem barely existed before Barack Obama became president in 2008. As CJR noted, when Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, the only far-right publication was the New York Post. By the time Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, there was ?only the Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, and arguably Sean Hannity.? In 1996, Fox News was launched, and Alex Jones of InfoWars went on the radio. Breitbart was not founded until 2007.

Breitbart first displaced Fox News in the GOP?s crowded primary season early in 2016, CJR reported, when there was a field of 17 candidates and no clear frontrunner.

?The pattern of hyper-partisan attack was set during the primary campaign, targeting not only opposing candidates but also media that did not support Trump?s candidacy,? it said. ?The February map [of the most read and shared websites], for example, shows Fox News as a smaller node quite distant from the Breitbart-centered right. It reflects the fact that Fox News received less attention than it did earlier or later in the campaign, and less attention, in particular, from users who also paid attention to the core Breitbart-centered sites and whose attention would have drawn Fox closer to Breitbart.?

CJR explained that Breitbart started to attack Fox News early in 2016. ?The top-20 stories in the right-wing media ecology during January included, for example, ?Trump Campaign Manager Reveals Fox News Debate Chief Has Daughter Working for Rubio.? More generally, the five most widely shared stories in which Breitbart refers to Fox are stories aimed to delegitimize Fox as the central arbiter of conservative news, tying it to immigration, terrorism and Muslims, and corruption.? The list is:

  • The Anti-Trump Network: Fox News Money Flows into Open Borders Group
  • NY Times Bombshell Scoop: Fox News Colluded with Rubio to Give Amnesty to Illegal Aliens
  • Google and Fox TV Invite Anti-Trump, Hitler-Citing, Muslim Advocate to Join Next GOP TV-Debate
  • Fox, Google Pick 1994 Illegal Immigrant To Ask Question in Iowa GOP Debate
  • Fox News at Facebook Meeting Is Misdirection: Murdoch and Zuckerberg Are Deeply Connected Over Immigration

Those attacks ceased by late spring, when the finalists for the GOP nomination were Trump and Ted Cruz. By then, CJR reported that the most-shared news sources on the right were, in descending order, Breitbart, Fox News, Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit, Washington Examiner, WikiLeaks and InfoWars. On the left, the most shared sources as the primaries ended were: CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Huffington Post, The Hill and Politico.

But even as red and blue America turned to differing media, CJR noted that the right?s aggressive and hyperbolic political attacks shaped coverage by more mainstream and professionalized outlets. ?The right-wing media was also able to bring the focus on immigration, Clinton emails, and scandals more generally to the broader media environment,? CJR said.

?A sentence-level analysis of stories throughout the media environment suggests that Donald Trump?s substantive agenda?heavily focused on immigration and direct attacks on Hillary Clinton?came to dominate public discussions,? it continued. ?The right-wing media was also able to bring the focus on immigration, Clinton emails, and scandals more generally to the broader media environment? [and these] came to dominate public discussions.?

Right-wing media wasn?t just setting the topical news agenda, it was shaping the angles or slants taken, CJR noted. ?While mainstream media coverage was often critical, it nonetheless revolved around the agenda that the right-wing media sphere set: immigration. Right-wing media, in turn, framed immigration in terms of terror, crime, and Islam, as a review of Breitbart and other right-wing media stories about immigration most widely shared on social media exhibits."

As the campaign crested, right-wing media was churning out a fount of propaganda, CJR said, saying its disinformation epitomized ?the paranoid? in our politics.

?What we find in our data is a network of mutually reinforcing hyper-partisan sites that revive what Richard Hofstadter called ?the paranoid style in American politics,? combining decontextualized truths, repeated falsehoods, and leaps of logic to create a fundamentally misleading view of the world,? CJR said. ??Fake news,? which implies made of whole cloth by politically disinterested parties out to make a buck of Facebook advertising dollars, rather than propaganda and disinformation, is not an adequate term. By repetition, variation, and circulation through many associated sites, the network of sites make their claims familiar to readers, and this fluency with the core narrative gives credence to the incredible.?

CJR gave stunning examples. It cited examples by Ending the Fed, which was one of the most frequently shared right-wing sites on Facebook.

?While Ending the Fed clearly had great success marketing stories on Facebook, our analysis shows nothing distinctive about the site?it is simply part-and-parcel of the Breitbart-centered sphere,? it wrote. ?The false claims perpetuated in Ending the Fed?s most-shared posts are well established tropes in right wing media: the leaked Podesta emails, alleged Saudi funding of Clinton?s campaign, and a lack of credibility in media. The most Facebook-shared story by Ending the Fed in October was ?IT?S OVER: Hillary?s ISIS Email Just Leaked & It?s Worse Than Anyone Could Have Imagined.? See also, InfoWars? ?Saudi Arabia has funded 20% of Hillary?s Presidential Campaign, Saudi Crown Prince Claims,? and Breitbart?s ?Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan?s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary?s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together.?

?This mix of claims and facts, linked through paranoid logic characterizes much of the most shared content linked to Breitbart,? CJR continued. ?It is a mistake to dismiss these stories as ?fake news;? their power stems from a potent mix of verifiable facts (the leaked Podesta emails), familiar repeated falsehoods, paranoid logic, and consistent political orientation within a mutually reinforcing network of like-minded sites.?

Needless to say, CJR believes the right?s fact-averse, hyper-partisan hate-mongering is extremely dangerous for American culture and politics. That?s because wide disinformation erodes the prospect of governing based on compromises. If there?s any silver lining to CJR?s analysis, it is that red and blue America still ?pay attention to traditional media, following professional journalistic practices, and cross-reference what they read on partisan sites.?

But there is no going back to a simpler, pre-internet past. Today?s press must recognize ?it is operating in a propaganda and disinformation rich environment,? CJR said. ?Rising to that challenge could usher in a new golden age for the Fourth Estate.?

CJR ended its report on that upbeat note. For the rest of us, its research and reporting tell us it is no accident that Breitbart?s Steve Bannon is in the White House as Trump?s senior strategist. He helped put Trump there by fanning an unheralded wave of dark propaganda and opening a Pandora?s Box that is not about to be closed.


Related Stories

Source: Study: How Breitbart Media's Disinformation Created the Paranoid, Fact-Averse Nation That Elected Trump
Centre for Research on Globalisation / The Crisis of Trust in Government and Globalisation
« Last post by Centre for Research on Globalisation on Today at 06:04:31 PM »
The Crisis of Trust in Government and Globalisation

Trust is in crisis all around the world. The four key institutions of trust in democratic nations in business, government, NGOs, and media has been in decline for years. So much so that the majority of respondents to the Edelmen

Source: The Crisis of Trust in Government and Globalisation
Centre for Research on Globalisation / Saudi Arabia ? Bin Salman?s Coup Is a Model For His Own Ouster
« Last post by Centre for Research on Globalisation on Today at 06:04:31 PM »
Saudi Arabia ? Bin Salman?s Coup Is a Model For His Own Ouster

Someone wanted the public to know that the new Saudi clown prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MbS) took up his new position by unceremoniously disposing his predecessor Mohammed bin Nayef (MbN) by force. The juicy details, true or not, were briefed 

Source: Saudi Arabia ? Bin Salman?s Coup Is a Model For His Own Ouster
Centre for Research on Globalisation / Codex Alimentarius and Monsanto?s Toxic Relations
« Last post by Centre for Research on Globalisation on Today at 06:04:31 PM »
Codex Alimentarius and Monsanto?s Toxic Relations

?Our soils are sick from greed-based, irresponsible agricultural practices, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, erosion and mineral depletion, all of which stop or reduce adequate microbial activity in the soil, rendering them sick and/or dead and sterile. Sick soils make for sick

Source: Codex Alimentarius and Monsanto?s Toxic Relations
Anarchist News dot Org / Sad
« Last post by on Today at 06:04:31 PM »

From 325 by Eat (Indonesia)

It is sad to see ?them? resorting to such incoherent, deluded, and even ahistorical if not unfactual analysis of contemporary anarchism and its various movements, successes and failures. It is even more sadder that the critique was poorly written. If the FAI never accomplished anything as the critique said, it is because FAI ideas were and are always to be put on trial of practice and its diverse variants. There is no monopoly of narrow individualism in the FAI as far as I comprehend it, as it is just an idea to encourage anarchists to attack with informal and antiorganisationalist forms (even this also is always within a context), because ?it? [FAI] doesn?t believe in the binary logic that this critique does. While the critique seemed, at first, to try to dismiss a binary vision of the world it falls on the same mistakes when it doesn?t even know nor understand how they or their moralistic-triumphant-over-others-methods originated and empowered.

While I was in full support of ITS in attacking technocrats, NGOs, and its effort in deconstructing the western anarchist moralistic-christian tendency, they too fall to the same logic as their so ?ideological enemies of gringo? anarchism.

This world doesn?t revolve around your ancestor, dear friend, and of course you cannot speak nor can understand anything about other gods and ancestors from different parts of the world. You don?t have any ideas or even understand the languages of Gong Solok Dayak of Borneo and their constant struggle against mining. You?ll also never understand my other part of ancestry of proud Northern Minahasan tribes, who, in the Tondano wars beheaded hundreds of Dutch colonials and also the Spanish in the island my great ancestors have lived. It is precisely because of this reason I consider myself as egoist-communist, why? Egoist in Stirnerist empowered me to understand myself and to stripped myself on any kind of values of subjugation and domination? the context of communism is to put the understanding of individuals and others concerning to common interests and needs: such as water and land. But you will never understand this because you already win and every other things are lost. You have achieved your absolute moral values. Congratulations, you have made your ?movement? reached its end and ultimate goals. Is that your ancestor teach you about life and living? I am very doubtful, really. I Yayat U Santi.



? the ?Anarchist Myth?, is very painful to read not in terms of grammar but like there?s no point in there except that they were trying to convinced or critique every other tendency that they?re the best one, what the ultimate methods on how we perceived reality are and who we should react to it. Their critique on FAI is not rightly spot on because it seemed they never read the interexchanges of theories, debates, and praxis, especially pieces written by CCF. It is confusing enough to me here to decolonise insurrectionist discourse or antiauthoritarianism in general and the present dynamics of eco-extremism in South America (I hope they don?t represent the general tendency) makes me even more confused if not sad.

Why? Because I ?hope? to see the other forms and unique ?movements? stem from un-westernised insurrectionists, their early communiques were sharp ? I was amazed, really, about how they?re not shying away from political killing? Now they seem more vague and abstract in the sense that they are abstracting an absolute moral value. It is just the same as the christian belief system but they sell the idea of defending nature and their ancestors (what kind of ancestor they were referring to?). I don?t dismiss their attentat but random killing? I don?t know. I would like to kill ? people who were trying to kill me or my loved ones and I don?t care if it is politically correct to do or not as it is only natural. But their apologistic arguments makes me even more confused. I am not trying to defend the FAI because it is impossible to do so, as it is a practical movement, it will be always incoherent as it is not the goals nor end and for sure it is not the answer for all the questions and solutions in life. Such alternatives and claims are absurd and deluded. I am angry but at the same time I was also sad to read about how they [ITS] are progressing.



Source: Sad
Richard Mellor / Brexit: Time to Correct the Error
« Last post by Richard Mellor on Today at 06:00:21 AM »
Brexit: Time to Correct the Error

by Finbar Geaney
member Irish Labor Party
Member, Executive Committee of the Dublin Council of Trade Unions

The leaders of the British labour movement, and unfortunately much of  the ?left?, are being led blindfold into a cul-de-sac. The proposed exit  of Britain from the European Union has generated a procession of  pilgrims that is shuffling slowly into the outer dark chanting  meaningless phrases about ?soft Brexit?, ?hard Brexit?, ?hard Border?,  ?soft Border? and respect for ?the decision of the people?.

There is no ?Tory Brexit? or ?left Brexit?. There is only Brexit ? a  thoroughly reactionary movement, in every respect. The foundations of  the process lie in a split within the British Tory Party. Some of the  leaders on the left in Britain ? including Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn ?  have always been confused on the question of Europe. It was their  belief that being opposed to the EU was an essential component of being  on the left. This confusion has only given succour to the right-wing  Tories in their endeavour. It is time now to correct that error.

When the so-called ?gang of four? brought about a split in the British  Labour Party more than three decades ago the issue was presented then as  a dispute about the European Economic Community. In fact the principal  aim of Jenkins, Rogers, Owen and Williams was to prevent the election of  a left Labour Government. The question of Europe was but a dust jacket  designed to present these individuals as people of principle who  believed in internationalism and to conceal their essential purpose  which was to facilitate a further victory for Thatcher as the better of  the two options then available, an objective that they achieved. Jenkins  himself went on to become President of the European Commission, which  only added to the confusion allowing form and substance to be  intermingled.

Jeremy Corbyn and co. now find themselves hoist on a hook about a phony  democratic principle. ?The people have spoken!? Well the last time that  the British people ?spoke? was last May when a Tory Government was  cobbled together with the support of the Democratic Unionist Party.

Does anybody seriously argue in that case the ?decision of the people?  on that occasion should remain inviolate for a period of five years? Or  what about Trump in the US! The people spoke there last November. Is  that decision also beyond bounds! People can change their minds, and  they do all the time.

The Tories say that they will get some agreement following their  discussions with EU bureaucrats. Well, let them bring that deal back for  a fresh vote by the British people. And the next time that such a vote  comes around hopefully the discussion will be on such issues as pay,  conditions, protections for workers, employment opportunities and public  services. And internationalism! The necessity for the organised labour  movement to unite across national boundaries in a common endeavour  against the depredations of capitalism, especially in its current  destructive phase, is obvious. It is high time for a common programme of  demands to be presented by trade unions across Europe in all of these  policy areas. The campaign must start now with a series of international  conferences of the labour movement.

There needs to be a public discussion, illuminated by socialist  internationalism, on the issue of the free movement of people in Europe.  Preventing workers of other EU countries from coming to Britain in  search of work is the intent behind the drive to leave the Single  Market.

The issue of refugees crossing the Mediterranean to escape the horrors  of despotic rule and military dictatorship is not the consequence of EU  actions as such but reflects centuries of colonial rule by European and  other world powers and the continuing series of proxy wars cynically  fostered by today?s major capitalist powers. This urgent matter of  saving the lives of millions of impoverished people has to be addressed  immediately but whether or not Britain leaves the EU will not itself be a  determining factor in this. The cynical use in the anti-EU campaign by  Farage and UKIP of photographs of masses of impoverished migrants is but  a further illustration of the need to revisit the Referendum.

As far as countries of the EU are concerned there are two issues to be  tackled. People should not be driven from their own countries because of  poverty and underdevelopment. A socialist programme of public works and  industrial development with the aim of raising living standards is  essential across all the countries of Europe. Privately-owned banks and  finance houses were principally responsible for the impoverishment of so  many of the peoples of Europe in the most recent recession. They must  be brought into public ownership. At the same time as fighting for the  socialist transformation of society as the only alternative to poverty,  trade unions in the advanced countries must insist on establishing  minimum standards for all workers. Rates of pay, hours of work and  safety conditions should be established in such a way as to eliminate  super exploitation of poor immigrant workers in the metropolitan  countries.   

There is no doubt but the drift within the EU has been towards a  consolidation of the power of capitalist industry and a diminution of  the power of public bodies. But the same is true of every capitalist  country. However within the EU such policies are the consequence of a  series of Treaties that have been enacted since 1957. All of these  Treaties have been voted upon by national parliaments or by popular  vote. The European Court of Justice is charged with the legal  enforcement of the terms of these Treaties. The Treaties must all now be  reopened for public discussion and renegotiated. All measures that  weaken public ownership and control must be repealed, as well as any  legislative measures that weaken the power of trade unions to fight for  improved working conditions.

Political clarity is essential in the EU debate in Britain. Even the  term Brexit is problematic, as concealed within this esoteric term is  the real process. It is being proposed that the United Kingdom leave the  European Union. That has not happened yet. In what ways can it be  argued that the UK leaving the EU will be of benefit to workers and  their families? Better wages? Better and safer working conditions? A  better and more sustainable environment? More jobs with long-term  security and decent pay? A key phrase in the right-wing campaign against  the EU is ?restoration of sovereignty?. The Treaties of the EU have  ceded sovereignty from national governments in certain areas such as  health, safety at work, working hours and the environment. So when the  Tories speak of the restoration of sovereignty, in which areas of  endeavour do they want to reverse the process? No doubt they are not  concerned about reversing measures that facilitate capitalist  accumulation or inhibit the expansion of public services, ?sovereignty?  or not. And what about the ?sovereignty? of their own Parliament which  they have ceded to an unelected  multimillionaire family that resides in  Buckingham Palace, or the ?sovereignty? that they accord to a bunch of  unelected bishops and hereditary peers in their House of Lords!
Source: Brexit: Time to Correct the Error
Trump Has a Vile Strategy to Beat the Mueller Investigation, and Even His Lawyers Are Disgusted

A new report reveals the president plans to assassinate the special counsel's character.

White House correspondent for the New York Times confirmed that the shakeup of President Donald Trump?s legal team was related to the effort to attack the credibility of special counsel Robert Mueller.

MSNBC?s Nicole Wallace, the former communications chief for President George W. Bush, pointed out that Mueller, who guided the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11, enjoyed a sterling reputation among both Democrats and Republicans.

?I know nothing is sacred with this man, but do you sense anyone around him is trying to pump the brakes on the character assassination of Bob Mueller?? Wallace said.

Times reporter Peter Baker said some of Trump?s team was advising the president against attacking Mueller, and he said some of his legal advisers have already quit over their disagreement with the strategy.

?People around him definitely are,? Baker said. ?This is, in fact, connected to the other thing you were talking about, the sort of blowup of the legal team. some of the lawyers told him don?t go after Robert Mueller. First of all, this guy is a good guy, he is a smart guy, a person of integrity.?

?In fact,? Baker continued, ?some of the lawyers have said to the president, in effect, if you didn?t do anything wrong and we think you don?t have anything to worry about in terms of the Russia investigation, then you should want Robert Mueller at your special counsel, because if he finds that, if that?s his conclusion, it will have credibility on both sides of the aisle, so don?t do that.?

Mark Corallo, who worked with Mueller in the Justice Department under Bush, resigned Thursday as spokesman and communications strategist for Trump?s legal team, and Baker said that was related to the strategy to discredit the special counsel.

?He thought that Robert Mueller was a person of integrity and that they shouldn?t be attacking him,? Baker said. ?So this is a point of stress within the Trump team.?


Related Stories

Source: Trump Has a Vile Strategy to Beat the Mueller Investigation, and Even His Lawyers Are Disgusted
Centre for Research on Globalisation / Damascus: Life Returns Five Years After NATO Destabilization Efforts
« Last post by Centre for Research on Globalisation on Today at 06:00:17 AM »
Damascus: Life Returns Five Years After NATO Destabilization Efforts

Featured image: The croissant stand in Aamarie district of Thomas Gate is known not only to Damascenes but visitors from other areas of Syria. While prices for most goods have risen all across Syria, the stand keeps its prices low:

Source: Damascus: Life Returns Five Years After NATO Destabilization Efforts
Centre for Research on Globalisation / The Russian Revolution, Debt Repudiation, War and Peace
« Last post by Centre for Research on Globalisation on Today at 06:00:17 AM »
The Russian Revolution, Debt Repudiation, War and Peace

In early January 1918, the Soviet government suspended payment on foreign debt, and in early February 1918 it decreed that all Tsarist debts were repudiated as were those contracted to continue the war by the provisional government between February and

Source: The Russian Revolution, Debt Repudiation, War and Peace
Centre for Research on Globalisation / United States Drowning in an Ocean of Subjectivism. Make America What?
« Last post by Centre for Research on Globalisation on Today at 06:00:17 AM »
United States Drowning in an Ocean of Subjectivism. Make America What?

?The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to

Source: United States Drowning in an Ocean of Subjectivism. Make America What?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10