The Loss of Language, Knowledge, & Prosperity
I hereby assert that a religion-in-all-but-name has corrupted the world’s societies. Its infection has corrupted the way that we think, act, and the way that we communicate. Basic knowledge has been lost and language has degraded from a profound process into a hegemonic tool.
If I am to be branded “extreme” or “crazy” (labels that practitioners of logic have proudly worn for centuries) for expressing these views, then I guarantee that by the end of this essay, you will bear precisely the same brand of “extreme” and “crazy”.
The Loving Mother | The Freeing Father
The fundamental dichotomy in free society is individualism vs collectivism, or more precisely, aspiration vs duty.
Individualism: The Morality of Aspiration
The component of morality that appeals to the individual is aspiration. This simply follows from every person’s purposeful action to improve his circumstances, that he ought to do so. Within the context of the morality of aspiration, any action that leads to a better circumstance is “good” and any action that leads further from it is “bad”. This is the morality of the Good Life; of excellence; the fullest realization of human powers; etc.
The morality of aspiration begins at the top of humanity. When one person urges another to eat healthy, he is appealing to it. When one person picks up a difficult book to read, he does so out of a desire to improve.
A lack of aspiration is to be considered a failure, not a wrongdoing. One can fail to realize his potential but should not be criminalized for that failure. After all, no law that can compel a man to live up to his full potential. The morality of aspiration simply tells people to be better and pursue their interests, but it cannot tell them what their interests or the Good Life is. That must be discovered individually.
Collectivism: The Morality of Duty
Where the morality of aspiration begins at the top of human action or that which should be achieved, the morality of duty begins at the bottom or that which should be condemned.
The morality of duty emphasizes the basic requirements of social living, or the basic obligations people ought to have towards one another. A “duty” inherently obeys the principle of reciprocity; it is an exchange between people, but not always an explicit exchange. You have a duty to not steal my property despite never having explicitly come to an agreement with me that we would not steal from one another.
The morality of duty simply follows from us being social animals. mate. The act of honesty is an obligation (duty) towards one another, and anyone that is caught lying is criticized in terms of the morality of duty; in terms of their failure to uphold their end of some intrinsic bargain.
The Overbearing Mother | The Dangerous Father
If you are not convinced that (I) these moralities exist, try imagining what it would mean if they didn’t exist. If the morality of aspiration didn’t exist, then that would be equivalent to claiming that people should not try to improve; that a person does not act purposefully. If the morality of duty didn’t exist, then that would be the equivalent of claiming that humanity is not social and should not honor obligations.
If you are not convinced that (II) these moralities form a fundamental dichotomy, try imagining all possible criticisms of a person. I posit that every criticism of a person ever made can be categorized as a failure to aspire or a failure to fulfil an obligation (duty).
I have yet to make a moral judgement. I have merely laid the basic framework for the study of morality. Moral judgments, while necessary and ubiquitous in society (except that modern people tend to make them while comically avoiding the m-word), are subjective. Classifying the framework (which we just did) and examining the relationships within that framework is an objective process. Let’s examine the necessity of moral judgments before observing the relationships of the two morals.
Tribes are just beginning to organize into a coherent society. Tribe A, who lives downstream, is at odds with Tribe B, who lives upstream and is dumping their waste into the river. The council of all tribes come together to discuss this issue, and quickly come to the conclusion that this issue is larger than the dispute between two tribes; that it will determine how broader society should behave in regard to the dumping of waste in rivers. This is a clear example where society has to devise a collective rule – an obligation. Society has to impose obligation on individuals because we cannot allow others to dump their waste upstream of us, which infringes upon the property of others (a form of theft).
Imagine another scenario where Tribe C is offended by the way in which Tribe D honors their dead. Tribe C calls the council of tribes together, hoping to enforce their own way of honoring the dead onto other tribes. In this scenario, Tribe C’s petty need to control others is the true issue. We ought to be careful when others want the iron hand of forced obligation imposed where it ought to not be imposed.
Where do we draw the line between the individual and the collective? In other words, what is the relationship between the two?
If the line is drawn too high, or collective/individual, then the rigidity of duty smothers creativity and autonomy.
If the morality of duty reaches upward beyond its proper sphere the iron hand of imposed obligation may stifle experiment, inspiration, and spontaneity.1p. 27-28
If the line is drawn too low, or individual/collective, then the morality of aspiration encroaches upon the territory of the morality of duty and
men may begin to weigh and qualify their obligations by standards of their own and we may end with the poet tossing his wife into the river in the belief – perhaps quite justified – that he will be able to write better poetry in her absence.1p. 27-28
In other words, we have arrived at the definitions of “villainy”.
What we refer to as “villains” are people who draw the line of morality too high or too low. Johnny Ringo (Tombstone. 1993), Prince/King Joffrey (A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin), The Joker (Batman franchise), and the perpetual-seeker-of-lawsuits are villains that draw the line too low; they tend to take from others without reciprocating. Professor Umbridge (Harry Potter), Nurse Ratched (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) and the jealous-mother-in-law are villains that draw the line too high by imposing unfair obligation; they tend to punish you when you fail to uphold your end of a bargain that you may have never even been aware of.
The two moralities form a dichotomy because one has fixed or sacred points while the other does not.
The Trader’s Dichotomy (Economics)
Human economics is perfectly analogous to human morality. Economics is the relationships of exchange (RoE) and the principle of marginal utility (PMU). The RoE is the collective component of economics. The PMU is the individual component of economics.
The relationships of exchange mirrors the morality of duty. Both have fixed points (obligations towards others) by relying on the principle of reciprocity. After all, without collective obligation, property rights would be meaningless. Neither the RoE in economics nor the Duty in morality can exist without people having some intrinsic obligations towards one another.
The principle of marginal utility mirrors the morality of aspiration. Neither hold anything to be sacred except for whatever higher state one is trying to achieve. We maximize the “utility” of our resources (PMU) to reach some economic state. We maximize anything in the morality of aspiration to reach The Excellent life. The two are even similar in their shortcomings because neither can tell us what the “economic state” or “The Excellent Life” is. They simply tell us how to achieve it.
A thief is an example of an economic villain who prioritizes PMU too highly over RoE; whereas an entitled trader is an example of one who prioritizes RoE too highly over PMU. This dichotomy is dealt with on the free market. It is a free society or a free market dichotomy.
In an unfree society, morality, economics, and language itself becomes so bizarrely incomprehensible that even the best of minds become handicapped.
The Coerced Society
When I identified the two software programs that censor us;2 indoctrination software that places state indoctrination (under the guise of leftist politics) in front of audiences;3 and techniques that could only be described as the high-tech creation of leftist NPCs,4 I was naively certain that the leftist would reconsider his loyalties. Instead, he unwittingly appealed to the morality of duty by exclaiming that these companies were private. This would have been a sound defense of these actions if it were true (since the free exchange means that both parties – internet users and tech platforms – are free to not engage in that exchange, so it obeys the principle of reciprocity). The issue with the leftist’s argument is that it is not a free exchange at all because government grants – money taken from us by force – were issued out to the organizations involved, and government coercive powers were wielded against the competitors of the participating organizations.5
Censorship (to stop ideas) could never have occurred without indoctrination (to force ideas). There were the two censorship software programs, but each had to first be justified by propaganda (e.g. “extremists” need to be censored to protect society). There was also non-software censorship, or the use of the person as a censor, but that person also needed to be indoctrinated first, which is why the indoctrination software program came about. The purpose of every censorship technique is to (obviously) censor; the purpose of every indoctrination technique is to create future censorship. Indoctrination preludes censorship. So what precludes indoctrination?
After I showed that the official government’s use of coercion created a proxy government online to censor and indoctrinate,6 the leftist abandoned the “private company” argument for the “public interest” argument instead. He cried out that it was in the public’s interest to protect us from extremists and racists; but I had already tracked down the narratives of “racism” and “extremism” to their roots:
- one has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than attacked by a far-right group in North America;7
- an enormous effort with considerable data advantages assembled such a meager dataset of white supremacists that their empirical approach was abandoned;8
- the dominant methods to classify “racist” and “misogynist” were too arbitrary to rely on;9
- America has extraordinarily high inter-ethnic and inter-racial relationship ratios which ironically resulted from the “racist” non-left.10
The international information control that Westerners have been observing is a result of coercion; of government intervention. Not only were certain ideas suppressed and other ideas forced, but language itself is being altered. This, by the way, is more fundamental than government’s control of the digital market. I will show that language distortion happens in every government endeavor. If coercion is used, the distortion of language is necessary.
After producing actual analyses on extremism, racism, and crime, the leftist resorted to claiming that “extremism” and “racism” are a serious threat because various (selective and flawed) opinion polls say so. I then ask them that if we are going to base our arguments on how the public feels, then why not believe the right when they claim that “the elites are waging a war on small businesses”? Or conversely, why not believe the right when they claim that they are not racist and extreme?
Speaking of the other side of our political coin, the current “right” is clearly a healthier crowd, noticeably out-competing the authoritarian left in the world of comedy (the left has bots while the right has memes); in the (start-up) news industry which indicates that their ideas are winning on the marketplace of ideas; and even in the primal market of relationships and sex by a staggering 11%.10 However, the rightist is guilty of similar tactics.
When I ask the rightist about breaking up “big tech” with antitrust enforcement, he enthusiastically supports such State powers. Even after showing him that it was The State behind all of the information control measures that he despises, he still insists on using State powers to “solve” a problem that the State itself caused. Even after showing him the frightening nature of antitrust enforcement, that it is highly arbitrary and could be used for tyrannical purposes,11 convincing him is often futile. He ironically clings to the socialist’s de facto definition of a “monopoly” rather than the more meaningful de jure definition.11 This is our first example of language distortion that exists outside of the digital market and a non-leftist’s inability to use language precisely.
An endeavor is not unethical or immoral because it is simply large. A business that is large may very well be unethical, but arbitrary metrics such as size are not adequate frameworks to make such judgments. This reliance on fallacies is indicative of a broader flaw in the use of language.
As a further example of his limited use of language, the rightist believes the leftist has abandoned “responsibility”, but the evil of the left is that they want to impose oppressive obligations (responsibilities) where obligations ought to not belong, such as sexual preference which ought to remain in the hands of the individual; forced charity which ironically renders the act meaningless; uniformity in speech and tone; and a great deal of other examples. The Leftist does not abandon responsibility contrary to what the rightist believes – the leftist abandons achievement, autonomy, individualism, and all of the suffering that accompanies it, which is why the leftist appears to have so little personality. The leftist abandons the morality of aspiration; he is the real-life version of Dolores Umbridge. Even when he appears to be abandoning social obligations, such as the 2020 “defund the police” narrative which was ostensibly a cry for a social organization (government police) to be disbanded, the intent of the leftist was to indoctrinate the police by intimidation – not disband them. The leftist wished to render government police not just bound by obligation fiscally but bound by a twisted morality as well.
If the leftist is manipulative in his use of language, the rightist is a failure. The rightist, despite his principles, has a hard time describing the nature of the left and more broadly, government. The leftist misuses language while the rightist’s ineptness to use it renders him useless.
The Great Degradation of Language has a Name: “Coercion”
From our earlier examples, the leftist’s concept of language is so damaged that he cannot distinguish between coercion (force) and reciprocal exchange (freedom), making him immensely more useful to an entity that relies on coercion. He has even been led to believe that if a company is some arbitrary size (defined by the government official of course) then that company is coercive and ought to be broken up by the (ironically, coercive) powers of the state. What he believes to be “coercive” and what he believes to not be coercive depends entirely upon the edicts passed down to him by (ironically) coercive authorities. It is a futile task to point out to the leftist that in a free market, the size of a business is actually an indicator of how much “good” it has done for society because in free markets, people only engage with the company if it benefits them. Such is the beauty of the mutually beneficial nature of the free exchange, and it is a great travesty that the leftist (and to a lesser extent, the rightist) cannot appreciate it.
Coercion is a collective effort that is funded by forcefully taking resources from citizens within its jurisdiction. We call this “government”. Since force is used, the morality of duty does not hold even in the best of circumstances. Citizens of democracy have been fooled to believe that democratic voting is a reciprocal exchange because they vote for their representatives, yet once those candidates are voted in and become government officials, they receive a salary regardless of what they do for their voters. If that official’s actions do not meet the voter’s standards, the voter does not have the option to forego the services of the official like the economic trader does in the exchange. Whether the voter likes it or not, money will be taken from him to pay for the official’s salary.
In other words, the government official is insulated from the principle of reciprocity (the morality of duty).
This statement holds for unelected officials if we replace “voter” with “citizen” and indeed for anyone who receives tax revenue – even if it is called a “grant”. The “proxy” government that I mentioned was an attempt by government to control information, which was not due to the free exchange but from the opportunists that accepted funds for the task of information control.
The morality of duty was discarded three-fold in that scenario: opportunists were paid via coerced funds for a task that would have negatively affected them in a free society; dissenters (Parlor, for instance) were slandered as “extremist-infested”; and the government-narratives-disguised-as-empathetic-leftism were slander of the very users on those platforms. Regardless of one’s status as an opportunist, dissenter, or user, each had to pay for it all via taxation. Remember that honesty comes from the morality of duty and collective obligations (the Golden Rule, if you will), which government does not have to participate in to the same extent that the subject does.
Strangely, by distorting the morality of duty, the government was able to manipulate (and create) the group (leftists) that wishes to impose the morality of duty oppressively.
Do we simply have “too large” of a government?
All of these bad things are happening in society, and whenever we look close enough, government is both the catalyst and the origin. Is it the unique property of a “large” government to degrade language and manipulate the masses?
Well, if we are willing to toss out logic and embrace arbitrary ethics, then we can define “bad” by some specific size and anything above that size will be condemned while anything below will be acceptable. Clearly, “bad” behavior cannot be logically defined by such metrics. For instance:
Bad behavior justified by size:
- It was only 29.3% of a lie!
- She only stole 5/32 of your sandwich!
- You were only raped for 7 and 1/2 thrusts!
Innocuous/good behavior condemned by size:
- You make $1.602 more than I do?!!
- You only gave away 1.5 kidneys to charity!?
Logically, the ethical argument that some collective endeavor is too large or too small is no less silly than the argument that “You were only raped for 7 and 1/2 thrusts”. Rape is wrong – it is an infringement on another’s body/property. Ethics is almost always complicated, but that is not to be confused with arbitrary.
This problem is not quantifiable but instead categorical. Government is bad because it is coercive. It is bad because it decreases prosperity. By the nature of its consequences, it also has to lie about morality and economics in order to justify itself; so it is bad because it is dishonest and degrades language. None of these facts are determined by arbitrary calculation.
“Large” governments (whatever that means) do not possess some special unethical properties that “small” governments do not possess. No matter how we define “small government,” it is bad for precisely the same reasons but on a smaller scale.
The profound truth is that:
There has never been a logically sound argument for government; and the very act of trying to justify it degrades language and critical thinking.
The ways in which a government endeavor is argued rely on the following fallacies: [1st collapsed content]
Each statist argument contains an ad hoc fallacy as well. It is merely assumed that a government endeavor is specifically required to solve some problem rather than the near-infinite possibilities of collective efforts that the free market provides. The statist also assumes that his arguments are not universally true; he applies them only to specific scenarios. He argues that some service is different from all other services so that government has to seize control of it. This touches on the ad hoc fallacy as well. I challenge a reader to devise an argument for government that does not rely on fallacy.
As an example, a statist might argue that some mining company produces the externality of pollution and government ought to intervene; yet government is more wasteful because it does not have to maximize the use of resources (in economics, the principle of marginal utility), so its intervention causes a greater externality of pollution.
The statist also selectively acknowledges the small good provided by a government action and excludes the net bad that results, further distorting what the morality of duty means.
Every government argument distorts the morality of duty and logic itself. Another reason for this fact is that government decreases prosperity, or more precisely, inhibits the only known mechanisms that fix prosperity.
As Rothbard and many others have shown, the free market maximizes social utility, which means that coercion disrupts the price finding mechanisms of the free market, harming the prosperity of society. Furthermore, government intervention also hampers innovation by inhibiting points of comparison (competition), by inhibiting differing opinions opposed to the will of the politically powerful (at the moment), and by inhibiting necessary adjustments that only the free market can provide.
The unhampered market is free of self-created economic problems; it furnishes the greatest abundance consistent with man’s command over nature at any given time. But those who yearn for power over their fellows, or who wish to plunder others, as well as those who fail to comprehend the praxeological stability of the free market, may well push the society back on the hegemonic road -Rothbard 13
As such, when the government official argues for a new government endeavor or attempts to justify the existence of a current government endeavor, that official has to lie or express ignorance in order to produce that argument. No amount of certification, formal protocols, or “official” licensing can change the fact that all government arguments are untrue, and all government actions are harmful.
In fact, let’s examine what an honest argument would look like for government. I will choose a (current) rightist topic this time:
I want police. Now, I suspect that all of you do not want as much of this service that I want us to have. As a consequence, it is only fair that you are coerced into having this service to the extent to which I want it. Otherwise, you will not freely purchase as much police as I personally want society to have. By definition, coercion-based policing will be more wasteful and less competent than private policing, but I cannot predict what the latter will be like, so I prefer society to be coerced for the former. –statist Kelly
Even an honest and informed argument for government must distort the principle of reciprocity because government relies on coercion. At best, a statist argument could be honest theoretically, but then no one would ever want the government action.
The action of government results in oppression, economically and legally.
The defense of government results in the loss of language and knowledge.
Back to our example above, society would certainly have private and charitable police if it had no government police; and it is worthwhile to examine some objective truths that we can define between the two.
- Private police would be based on the free exchange so it would honor the principle of reciprocity (moralityof duty). Government policing, based on coercion, cannot do this.
- We do not know to what extent private police would exist, except that it will obey the supply-and-demand principle. Since government policing cannot follow this principle, it will oscillate from being wasteful (too much Supply forced on the population) to being a shortage (too little Supply to meet Demand).
- We do not know what specific future formsprivate policing will take because competition and innovation is unpredictable. We only know that government policing will stifle innovation.
- We know that private policing will perform its function more competently than government policing as (empirical argument:) all private endeavors have been observed to perform more competently than government endeavors of a similar service, and (rational argument:) they would have an incentive that government policing lacks – profit and loss.
- We know that private policing will be less wasteful than government policing because (empirical argument) all private endeavors have been observed to be less wasteful than government endeavors of a similar service and (rational argument) because resources are maximized in their utility on the free exchange.
- Government policing will hamper the ability of individuals to pursue the morality of aspiration (to improve themselves) since it takes from them by force; whereas they have an option in the private analogue.
And the most profound realization of all is that the argument above applies to all government endeavors vs private endeavors.
Then why do people defend government?
Coercion can only exist by lying about itself. Indoctrination does not work unless language is degraded, and censorship would have little utility on a population that is not indoctrinated. In order to profit from coercion, the statist has to (1) degrade language, (2) indoctrinate, and then (3) censor; and much of those tasks do not necessarily have to be done by the same statist.
The opportunists that would benefit from some government intervention (like Duck Duck Go, recently)12 will profitably lobby for it and will be the first to believe their own lies since it is in their interests to do so. Duck Duck Go has participated in every step listed above in order to do so.
The lobbyist appears to be honoring the morality of aspiration since it is in his interests to do so. On the other hand, if some act requires dishonesty and/or a lack of critical thinking, which lobbying necessarily requires, then it may also be argued that lobbying not the pursuit of the Good Life, but is a twisted version of the morality of aspiration that harms just as much, if not more, than it helps the lobbying party. Furthermore, profit from lobbying comes at the expense of everyone else since government intervention harms society. In other words, Duck Duck Go is the aspiration/duty villain in addition to failing to pursue the morality of aspiration.
Even the victims of government interventions/endeavors will propagate statist propaganda in the belief that it will benefit them. Government may take 10 coins unconditionally from citizens but give back 3 coins conditionally. Government will give those 3 coins back to those that satisfy the condition of compliance. This is what the welfare State is and democracy 101: loot society but give just enough back that you secure voters for the next election.
While the net interest of a citizen is to abolish the government intervention (and keep the 10 coins for all of society), the marginal interest of a citizen is to lobby for the conditional return of 3 coins. The marginal interest is still a net harm, but the citizen cannot conceive of another way and only sees the options of not receiving a portion of the conditional return or receiving a portion of the conditional return; the option of abolishing the intervention altogether is rarely considered.
The loyal subject gains “success” in life by believing logically flawed and manipulative arguments from his favorite government officials because it is in his marginal interests to do so. Much like with the example of Duck Duck Go, stupidity and immorality, two traits that are punished on the free market, are incentivized in coerced society. The loyal subject is rewarded for using language incorrectly. He is marginally rewarded for believing in the very propaganda that oppresses him.
If logic alone does not suffice, allow me to reveal the corruption in an entire subfield of psychology.
On my pursuit to expose how information is controlled, I came face-to-face with psychology organizations that were indoctrinating people with statist propaganda, mostly by targeting the traumatized and those that fancy themselves as traumatized. I decided to conduct a review of every independent scientific study produced over the psychology of trauma and resilience.14 Within a 65-year period, there have been just over 50 sound independent empirical studies within this subfield, and the findings are not ata all what one would suspect if mainstream narratives were to be believed.
The unofficial propaganda is that people are hyper-sensitive to trauma-related illnesses and require institutional care (or more precisely, “parenting”), when the reality is that the vast majority of people are not capable of developing chronic PTSD. Only a small minority (4-14%) of people who encounter war, death, rape, and other extremes will benefit from trauma-treatments; these are the people that can develop chronic levels of PTSD. All others are best left alone clinically, even if they suffer from some PTSD. In fact, of the resilient, half do not benefit from treatment and the other half regress from treatment; yet the highly state-subsidized field would rather harm more people than it helps if state pawns are the result.
If there are no logically sound arguments for government, then is the statist a religious prophet?
If all claims made by the statist rely on the rituals referred to as “certification”; the rites of “formal licensing”, and are false and faith-based and therefore supernatural, then is the statist any better than a modern sorcerer participating in astrology or witchcraft? The only difference after all, is that one happens to wield powers of force.
The state-funded economist, with his convoluted mathematics that only he has the divine power to interpret (I have pointed out the mathematical errors across many neo-economists’ formulas only to be met with hysterical outrage from their devout followers), is no more than a sorcerer of some supernatural experiment that has yet to be observed.
The state-funded lawyer, with his redefinition of words and undying servitude to The State, is no more than a spell-caster, perpetually mixing the symbols we rely on in a futile attempt to conjure up the ethical government.
The difference between the statist and other religions is that most religions attempt to help humanity better understand their nature while statism attempts to distort human nature in an attempt to enslave humanity. Coercion necessarily distorts language, abuses morality, misinterprets economics, and there are no known examples to the contrary.
I have obsessed over the topic of information control because no one else will. There are many paths to anarchism, but this was mine. By merely finding three software programs, I have deduced that coercion necessarily leads to the degradation of language, which enables indoctrination, which enables censorship, and repeat.
The great economists proved that:
Coercion → Loss of prosperity
The reality is much worse, because for us to reach that point, coercion had to have been preached (justified).
The Act of Justifying Coercion → Degradation of Language → Indoctrination → Censorship → … [repeat]
The Heretic’s Dictionary [2nd collapsible content]
I am enormously indebted to two men I have never met: Lon L. Fuller and Murray Rothbard. If a reader found a single sentence in this essay to be profound, the credit goes to these two and the giants that came before them. If a reader found this essay to be nonsensical ramblings of an anti-state heretic, then that failure does not reflect their ideas but my own.
 Fuller. “The Morality of Law.” Storrs Lectures on Jurisprudence Yale Law School. 1963 print.
 Offield. “ShadowBanned”. The ARKA Journal.
 Offield. “Indoctrination Mechanisms Online”. The ARKA Journal.
 Offield. “An Indoctrination Technique on the World’s Largest Platform.” The ARKA Journal.
 Offield. “The Peers that Betrayed Us.” The ARKA Journal.
 Offield. “America’s Proxy Government.” The ARKA Journal.
 Offield. “The False Agenda”. The ARKA Journal.
 Offield. “A Hidden War on Free Speech: Google’s Jigsaw”. The ARKA Journal.
 Offield. “The World’s Leading Brainwasher: Moonshot”. The ARKA Journal.
 Offield. “America is not Racist”. The ARKA Journal.
 Offield. “Information Control in America.” The ARKA Journal.
 Offield. “Duck Duck Go’s Unethical Strategy.” The ARKA Journal.
 Murray N. Rothbard. “Man, Economy, and State with Power and Markets”. Ludwig Von Mises Institute. 2nd edition. 2009.
 Offield. “A Tale of Suppressed Science: The Psychology of Trauma and Resilience”. The ARKA Journal.
- OFFIELD: The Hateful Mother, The Absent Father - September 8, 2022
- OFFIELD: The censorship software ruining your lives finally exposed: report - August 11, 2022
New Right Network depends on your support. Donate now