The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACE FOR A WHITE CHILD IS IN THE WOMB

During a recent debate it became apparent that we are having trouble defining exactly what "English Culture" really was. Some of us feel that there should be some kind of datum to decency. Some of us believe that we should revive the notion that England is a Christian Culture but then we have problems defining what, as Christians, we actually stand for.

 

One of things that I have seen in my life is the damage that Abortion has done to friends and relatives and it worries me that out Liberal culture tries to sell Abortion as a form of contraception and then leaves the Parents and the family to pick up the phycological pieces later. I have attached Melanie Phillips article on Abortion for your interest. 

 

Strictly speaking this has nothing to do with the fight against Islam but one of the charges that I have heard made by Islamists against our Culture is that it is decadent and evil, and despite the fact that that is a bit rich coming from a culture that thinks Murder and dismemberment is a legitimate family activity, but be that as it may - they have a point. I have kept this off the main walls as it is pretty irrelevant but I put it here in case it may interest anyone else.

 

What hope is there if doctors won't respect unborn children?

By MELANIE PHILLIPS
Last updated at 11:52 AM on 28th February 2011

 

You really do have to wonder which is the more extreme effect of our politically correct culture — the way in which it brutalises people, or the way it turns them into cerebrally-challenged automatons?

Both attributes were on startling display in the latest piece of advice to emanate from no less august a body than the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

This guidance, intended for all doctors, nurses and counsellors advising women contemplating having an abortion, said such women should be told that terminating a pregnancy was safer than having a baby.

 

 

Savage: 'It is dismaying that even doctors specialising in bringing babies into the world have succumbed to this savage reductionism'

To which one can only ask: safer for whom, precisely? Not for the baby, certainly.

 

This is not meant to be a flip comment. For the point is that these doctors seemed to have totally lost sight of some basic humanity here.

Abortion is — or should be seen as — at best, a necessary evil. Some religious people, of course, do not accept even that. They regard abortion simply as the killing of the unborn and a crime against humanity and the Almighty.

 

Although their views should be respected, the fact is that very few people would want to return to the days when abortion was illegal. Nevertheless, there is widespread and increasing disquiet about abortion — on account of both the rate at which it is occurring and the coarsening of values that it has brought in its wake.

For like so many other liberalising measures, what started as a humane response — in this case to the dangerous back-street butchery of desperate women — has turned into something quite different.

The framers of the original legislation never foresaw that abortion would turn into a routine form of contraception. But that’s what has happened.

The official figures for 2009 show that there were 189,100 abortions in England and Wales — with no fewer than 42.4 per cent of all pregnancies to women under the age of 20 ending in a termination, rising to around 60 per cent among under-16s. Indeed, from 1969, the number of abortions to girls under 20 more than quadrupled to over 40,000 in 2009.

Experts have said that although some progress has been made in reducing Britain’s world-beating rate of teenage pregnancies, abortion is increasingly being seen as the major method of contraception for many young women.

These figures are horrifying. Abortion should be a last resort. The law was framed as a balancing act between different levels of harm. The destruction of the foetus could be undertaken only if the harm to the mother of having the baby was considered too great.

This was because what was produced at conception was considered an early form of human life. And even though it was not considered to have the same status as a developed baby, it was once deemed vital to treat it with respect. To do otherwise was to devalue life itself and our common humanity.

Well, this is precisely what has taken place. That sense of balance went out of the window long ago under the pressure of ideologues screaming about ‘a woman’s right to choose’, which reframed abortion solely as concerning the interests of the mother.

It is dismaying indeed — even if not altogether surprising — that even doctors specialising in bringing babies into the world have succumbed to this savage reductionism.

Simply as a procedure, it may well be the case that having a baby is more dangerous than an abortion.

 

 

Controversial: 'Abortion should be a last resort. The law was framed as a balancing act between different levels of harm'

But to imply that having a baby is a dangerous procedure is a disreputable piece of scaremongering. It amounts to the psychological manipulation of women who are already in a vulnerable state. It is a form of bullying and a gross abuse of medical power.

Nor is that all. The guidance also says that women who are deciding whether to have an abortion must be told that most do not suffer any psychological harm from the procedure.

But rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who have had an abortion. While cause and effect cannot be proved, it defies common sense to say that there is no connection.

 

'Rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who have had an abortion'

Indeed, according to consultant psychiatrist Professor Patricia Casey, there are more than 30 studies showing an association between abortion and psychological trauma.

Moreover, this new guidance is even more extraordinary since doctors are always supposed to base their advice on the individual circumstances of every patient. Yet these are blanket guidelines for the treatment of all women considering abortion. They are, therefore, not geared to every woman’s own best interests.

They are intended rather to achieve one aim — to get all such women to have abortions.

This is by no stretch of the imagination a medical agenda but an ideological one — and a terrifyingly inhuman one at that.

It appears that, taken aback by the ferocity of the reaction to this guidance, the Royal College is now having second thoughts about the wording.

But the question remains how doctors can have lost their ethical compass so badly that they dehumanise life in this way, and dress up as ‘treatment’ the manipulation of fragile patients.

The answer is that medicine itself has been progressively brutalised under the impact of abortion.

In 1948, in the wake of the atrocities of the Nazi period, doctors subscribed to a professional oath enshrined in the Declaration of Geneva which contained this clause: ‘I will have the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception . . .’

By 1984, however, the last five words had been altered to read ‘from its beginning’ — and, in 2005, they were deleted altogether. The beginning of life had been written out of the world’s medical ethical script as just too inconvenient.

It could not be allowed to interfere with the ‘rights’ of a woman or girl, including the ‘right’ to indulge in unconstrained sexual activity. The early product of conception was thus stripped of all human value.

 

 

'The question remains how doctors can have lost their ethical compass so badly that they dehumanise life in this way'

The result of this profound cultural shift has been not only that a solemn and even tragic dilemma has been turned into an unthinking extension of ‘lifestyle choice’ which has all but destroyed the intrinsic respect for human life which defines a civilised society, it has also helped undermine childhood and exposed ever younger girls to both psychological and physical harm and exploitation.

The belief that the only harm arising from the sexual activity of young teenagers is the unfortunate consequence of a live baby has helped promote not just the normalisation of abortion, but the premature sexualisation of even very young children.

As an investigation by this paper found last week, businesses are targeting children under ten with ‘Lipstick and Limo’ parties and U.S.-influenced ‘mini-model’ fashion parades, complete with pageant-style tiaras and scaled-down catwalks, ‘pamper parties’ and cosmetic tips previously confined to the adult market.

In addition, children are being pushed by their parents to make YouTube videos in which they sing sexualised or drug-influenced pop lyrics, mimicking the provocative routines of stars like Lady Gaga and Madonna.

Treating children as if they are mini-adults in this grotesque manner illustrates once again the collapse of the understanding that adults have a duty to parent children by providing appropriate boundaries, and thus protect them from harm.

Indeed, if individual safety really were the top priority, our society would be seeking to reverse the disastrous doctrine of ‘lifestyle choice’ which has produced this rampant sexual promiscuity and catastrophic rise in teenage abortion.

But don’t expect the dehumanising automatons of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to say so.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1361285/What-hope-doctors...

 

I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has any views on what exactly "English Culture" is and how we can define it. I would be particularly interested in hearing views from other Christians who would like make sure our religion is never subverted to justify violence and hatred.

 

God Bless to all

 

John Sobieski

 

 

 

Views: 1825

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of The 4 Freedoms Library to add comments!

Comment by Indoeuropean on March 3, 2011 at 21:54
Thank you John. God (and Goddess) bless you and your loved Ones. Have a good and starry Night :)
Comment by John Sobieski on March 3, 2011 at 21:47

Then look: if I wear a Bikini on a red Sea Beach, then since it is not a Burkini, I'm supposed to be a Whore looking for Sex. NOT AT ALL - READ POST ON DUTY

But not only: I might clearly tell you that in my 20s there were Boys who would insult you (Girl) if you did not have Sex with them <- you (Girl) should be a fearful, phobic, selfish, whatever Person, who doesn't deserve Respect, because she doesn't love others. IN THE WORLD PAT AND I COME FROM THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR FROM BOYS WOULD HAVE EARNED THEM A GOOD KICKING

 

Don't forget that many - so called - Sluts might have been sexually mistreated at Home. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING - I AGREE

Anyway, this (what you and Pat are exposing) is why Islam is gaining some Success.

It APPEARENTLY respects Women/Females/Girls.

I can't deny that it attractED me, too .... NOT ON THIS PLANET

 

GOD BLESS AND GOOD NIGHT.

JOHN.

 

Comment by Indoeuropean on March 3, 2011 at 20:27

@John:

dear John, I cannot not answering to such a nice Comment of yours!

Thank you for it, fist of all.

Then look: if I wear a Bikini on a red Sea Beach, then since it is not a Burkini, I'm supposed to be a Whore looking for Sex.

Is that Equation right? [Note: as soon one understand how does the Mentality look like, then one not only does not wear a Bikini anymore, but one does not even go to the Beach anymore.]

*

By the Way I do not like Naivety and I hope to set myself free from it ASAP!

Yes, Naivety per se is charming: but how tricky! Better to see Things the Way they are.

Naivety is Deception, and Deception drives to Suffering.

Anyway: God bless your wonderful Wife ;)

*

I would like to answer you immediately about the Essence of Freedom: of course I do not think that wearing some Kind (or another) of Clothes means Freedom.

Of course I do not think that Naivety (= thinking to be Safe) is Freedom. Of course I do not think that Abortion is a Contraceptive: not at all.

I think that they get the Idea of wearing those Clothes and behaving like that from Medias <- which say that a beautiful/though/pretty/nice/... Girl wears that and behaves like that, and which say that Boys/Men like that.

But not only: I might clearly tell you that in my 20s there were Boys who would insult you (Girl) if you did not have Sex with them <- you (Girl) should be a fearful, phobic, selfish, whatever Person, who doesn't deserve Respect, because she doesn't love others.

[Not that they Arguments were eventually convincing, but inside of one's (Girl's) Heart/Mind those Issues have an Impact.]

*

Don't forget that many - so called - Sluts might have been sexually mistreated at Home.

Never undervalue this (hidden) Reality.

(...)

*

By the Way, Pocahontas means poca Hontas = little Shame = shameless.

I think you should talk about Bamby,

when talking about innocent Souls :)

*

Anyway, this (what you and Pat are exposing) is why Islam is gaining some Success.

It APPEARENTLY respects Women/Females/Girls.

I can't deny that it attractED me, too ....

*

By the Way,

did you know that? Subliminal Messages in Walt Disney Movies ->

Pocahontas :) , AlLadin ,  (various) .

*

Now I go.

Kindest Regards and please, keep your Kindness.

It's wonderful.

Bye!

 

 

Comment by John Sobieski on March 3, 2011 at 19:24

Indo: Bless your heart - you think those girls just went out wanting to look beautiful???- You remind me of my wife you have a really sweet outlook - please forgive me if I seem a little brisk sometimes - I think I am growing more and more like Victor Meldrew ever year - "I don't believe it!" :-)

those girls weren't hunting Ducks dressed like that Honey - they were defiantly shooting bear. And before you get all Feminist on me - I grew up with Slags, I went to school with slags and I am not entirely sure about my first wife but you definitely can't slip a slag past me and pretend she is Pochontas.

Question: from where did those girls get their idea of what is beautiful? from where did they get the idea that they would be safe? from where did they get the idea that Abortion is an easy system of contraception? from where did they get the idea that men wanted them to look like that or behave like that? Don't post back straight away and just have a little think on that and what Pat said earlier. Just mull on it for a few days and ask yourself where is the essence of freedom?

 

With regard to Buddhism - there has been a lot of work done on the relationship between Buddhism and Christianity, particularly Zen Buddhism. I think Pat made a very good point that the perception of the Church fostered on us by the Left and the reality of the Church is very different.

With regard to Males in this equation - if you really read and thought about what I and Pat had said you would see that we talking specifically about the Male role in this sad tale and you would see that we agree with you :-)

Bless your heart and please always keep your naivety - it really is charming!!! :-)

Comment by Indoeuropean on March 3, 2011 at 18:03

@John:

wow! What a Comment. Thank you. I'm still disliking the Word "Morals", because it remembers me Islam, and I do dislike it.

I don't know: maybe I'm mixing up.

Please, the catholic Church doesn't love me, otherwise: it had listened to Alice Miller who were talking it about Childrens' Rights (...),

it had given Women more Rights than they have within the Church.

*

If the catholic Church would have a Clue about Buddhism, it would talk about it,

but it doesn't,

and the Thing about "the Father, the holy Ghost and the Son" shows how deeply misogynist

and even liar it is.

Sorry for Clearity.

That said: I do go to the Church, do like votive Candles, do like amazing Work of Art by Italian Artists such as

Leonardo Da Vinci, Raffaello, Donatello, and so -> they do inspire me a lot.

*

Now: Islam is far worst than the catholic Church.

*

For your Information, I did pick up, while now I don't.

I anyway get scientifically interested in "Religions":

differently from yesterday, today I do not love them all anymore.

Actually, I don't like them at all. (...)

*

You say/write, I quote: "Do you think those girls made a value judgement to go out and get Fxxked and are expressing their eternal sisterhood. How dare you! They have been brain washed all their lives, by parents, TV, Friends - images, statements, implications that they must behave in a certain way - do you really think that the Feminist Mafia had given them one second of free choice."

Who told you they wanted to get fucked?

Do Girls on Advertisement want to get fucked?

Or they simply want to look gorgeous, and attract others' Attention and ... Esteem? (*)

So, why do you state that the Girls in the Picture want to get fucked? This is absurd!

They (my Opinion) simply want to be beautiful: now you might tell (me) that they aren't,

but hey, someone must have created and sold those Clothes,

and most probably they have been considered "very in".

There is a whole Industry out there, which sells "beautiful Things", which are actually very ugly

(but this is no News: please refer to "The Emperor's new Clothes").

*

About the (false) Feminist (Mafia), you're Right: though it isn't the Feminist Mafia.

I must admit I've been a Victim of it, too.

I feel it is Leftism, or not (here where I live the Right likes ... Bitches. Not the Left. Which doesn't mean that the Left is holy or something. Just dishonest or inconsistent),

anyway this has taught us (to Girls of my Generation) that "Men will Love you just if you give them Sex".

[I mean: this Time you don't need me to rearticulate the Message, do you? ;)]

*

Unwanted Babies, so to call them, comes FROM 2 INDIVIDUALS, which are a Female and a Male.

Where is the Male('s Responsibility) in your Comment?

Where is Male's Education?

Or is it (like in Islam) that Males cannot control their Genitalia, and the Woman (only) is responsible in Case of sexual Intercourses?

[This were a typical Baby Boy's pampered wishful Thinking (...)].

*

Yes, we are all responsible for our sexual Representation,

while Adults are more responsible,

and if Today Things are that bad,

we might say """thank you""" to our Forefathers/-mothers,

who (willingly/consciously or not) caused the present Times' Situation.

*

I just knew about Cathy O'Brian: this is a opened Door on the present Times' Situation,

or simply an opened Door upon a real Problem (I'd call it a Problem)

existing in People's Mind(s) since always:

Perversion(s) and Thirst of Power.

Unfortunately Sex (and sexual Abuses) play a Role in that. (...)

*

Very complex Matter.

*

Kindest Regards and all the Best.

Comment by John Sobieski on March 3, 2011 at 15:23

Indo: I agree with your point with regard to the "oneness" of the truth. However, I think you may have fundamentally missunderstood Buddhist philosophy.

You said: "Light/Truth and Love/Ethics (not Morals ...) into Action" This is to misunderstand the Dhamma.

Love/ Ethics absolutely IS morals - Morality is the Buddha nature in action. True Compassion is a cataclysmic awareness which is the basis of a truly just society. The reason the Catholic Church would have a problem with your point - is out of love for you - a "pick and mix" approach to philosophy can be very dangerous to your well being.

For instance: By focussing on the pictures of those girls going out dressed like whores - you felt that they have the right to express themselves. And this would be true if each individual lived in a vacuum - but we don't. Do you think those girls made a value judgement to go out and get Fxxked and are expressing their eternal sisterhood. How dare you! They have been brain washed all their lives, by parents, TV, Friends - images, statements, implications that they must behave in a certain way - do you really think that the Feminist Mafia had given them one second of free choice. They wobble down the road on their Clear 4" stilettos just like lambs to the slaughter. And it is the responsibility of all of us. Each unwanted baby - each ball of blood in a bucket is the responsibility of all of us - not just those girls. They are sacrifices to the God of your sacred individuality. That is not a "Man" speaking that is the "Truth" speaking.

Comment by Indoeuropean on March 3, 2011 at 15:12

@All:

and about Procreating and giving Birth to Children and or to Creatures (Ideas and Projects included),

I read something marvellous from Mikhael Omraam Aivanhov ,

which talks about Spirituality, and Science and

THE UNION BETWEEN MALE/MASCULINE AND FEMALE/FEMININE,

its Importance, its Value.

*

Thank you for reading.

Have a beautiful Day, you All.

Comment by Indoeuropean on March 3, 2011 at 15:00

@Alan. Thank you for quoting, interesting,

It happened me to read the Values Theory by Trunesaburo Makiguchi ,

whose Sentence (I try to translate it into ENG from my native Language) "fool is the one who grasps a present Advantage loosing a future greater one"

[but here comes the Trick: one might say "oh, the future Advantage is in the Afterlife!" ->

well no, not necessarely. Buddhism is a very practical "Religion",

and the above mentioned Sentence might "simply" refer to "use Rationality (too),

do not (merely) act out of Emotions/Passions" <-

which would be a very useful and suitable Teaching for our Western Societies of Today (...).

The typical Leftist Teaching "think with your Heart" is here totally denied:

here one says "think with your Head/Brain, and feel with your Heart",

which I like the most.

Then Buddhism teaches also what does "Heart" mean:

and to differentiate between Feelings (sort of spiritual Matter) and Emotions (sort of lower Instincts).]

*

Now, this doesn't mean that Emotions/Passions are wrong:

analising them, they'll tell us a lot about ourselves,

and our (personal) History.

Most of the Time our Emotions/Passions have been developed out of

past Traumas (traumatic Experiences)

[which is the Field that Psychology is supposed to approach,

and this is what Psychology is supposed to heal.

Unfortunately: Psychology was the Science of Socrates (within so called Western World),

and it litteraly meant "Science of the Soul" (which reminds me to Spirituality),

while today, Spirituality is almost completely banned from that medical Field also called "Psychology".]

*

Today there (almost) is a Separation between Spirituality and Science,

which turn us unintelligent (...).

*

Then, what did I wanted to say?

Oh yes. Thank you for posting some "Yogic [I especially loved a Book about Tantric Yoginis] Pearls of Wisdom",

which I appreciated very much,

and I now send you kindest Regards.

Have a lovliest Day.

Comment by Indoeuropean on March 3, 2011 at 14:32

@Pat and John. Thank you for your Comments, enlightening.

I think "the Fathers (and the Mothers) of the Desert" clearly show what does Christianity in its Essence mean, which is very similar to so called Eastern Philosophies

[do not forget that Christianity was born in the Middle East and Jesus-Christ is supposed to have spent Time in Nepal among Buddhist Monks, which wouldn't suprise me at all ->

that said,

every true (?) enlightened Being does state the same Things, and do talk about the same Things <-

therefore, at this Point, there shoudn't be a Eastern - Buddhist/Hindo - Spirituality or Philosophy and a Western - Christian - one,

there should be just 1 (*).

BUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WOULD NOT SUPPORT THIS (MOST PRECIOUS - IN MY OPINION -) POINT OF VIEW.]

Please note that holy Sites of "the Father (and the Mothers!) of the Desert" are (appearently) no more freely accessible to the Public.

(APPEARENTLY) TOTALLY REMOVED FROM THE SIGHT AND FROM THE MEMORY. [GUESS WHICH "RELIGION" RULES THERE NOW.] 

*

(*) And here John you're Right, here is the TRUE "Culture of Our" ->

but if you talk about it in our Society, this will mean "Communism" or "Globalization".

Which, in my Opinion, have Nothing to do with the (true) "Culture of Our",

therefore I prefer to talk about the Need of a "Culture of Me",

which teaches me about my Self, which allows me to arise my Awareness, which helps me to know and be my Self.

[Bit complicated maybe. Let's say that: when one realizes who he/she really is, then the Feeling of so called "Oneness" comes by itself.

Wrongly undestood "Culture of Me" drives to Greediness and narrow Mindness (...).]

*

Now: be clear about this Thing about Body and Spirit ->

the Body is our Vehicle, and there is no spiritual Expression without it.

[Not that I'm very fond of it. I'm just learning it. I would cite Peter Schellenbaum on it, JUNGHIAN Psychologist, and BUDDHIST.]

I mean: this is the Way (Body & Spirit together) one puts

Light/Truth and Love/Ethics (not Morals ...) into Action [and here comes the Concept of

"Beauty", which originally means "beautiful Actions", "aesthetic Actions" <-

Cfr. "Symposium" by Plato].

Or: (Body & Spirit are the only Way to put) Life into Action.

*

All in all (but forgive me please if you've been telling exactely this and I did not get it),

Flesh and Spirit must be both taken into Consideration,

and of course one should clearify his/her Mind about what does Flesh mean,

and what does Spirit mean.

[I do point this out since ... Islam ... does say that it takes Care of both,

while, in my Opinion and after observing and studying it,

it does exactely the Opposite.

But Taqyyia, Disinformation, Lie, is strong(er) and powerful,

so many People (...) get fooled (...).]

Comment by John Sobieski on March 3, 2011 at 13:32

Well put Pat, which is another way of expressing BKS Lyenagar's point - in time the spirit teaches what is really sweet and what is really poison.

Indo: As a mongrel from all over the world and in particularly Ceylon - I was, as a young man of the 70s attracted to the same pseudo eastern philosophy as you are now so I entirely sympathize. You are reading my words through the prism of your own prejudice and misunderstanding my meaning. If you meditate on the words that Pat and I have said you may find an interesting confirmation of your inner conviction.

The New Age view is that we are individuals and that the individual is sacred but this, you will find, is false. Now forgive me for getting psychedelic Guys! - we are drops of rain within the ocean - we are both individual and yet a part of a whole - it is a paradox. We are a whole, our actions affect everyone and the least of our society affects our own personal world. Our modern society leaves us hollow and in despair because it cannot fulfill us.

Love = Care = duty = self sacrifice = love.

 

Here endeth the first lesson :-) 

 

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2021   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service