Breve texto (francés) sobre EL ESTADO DESMANTELADO

Deja un comentario
Del libro titulado Los mil desmantelamientos del Estado el enlace nos ofrece el prólogo al libro
Muy recomendable lectura,a juicio de los editores de introfilosofia y de arsfilosofo


video de Ed Hermann: Iberoamérica y EEUU modus operandi fascismos

1 comentario
Ed Hermann hace una breve exposición de las tesis desarrolladas en su libro sobre la conexión entre EEUU y Estados de Hispanoamérica que implantaron regímenes fascistas en connivencia con el imperialismo al servicio de las grandes corporaciones yankis

Longtime activist and author Edward S. Herman was interviewed by Hans Bennett in Philadelphia on December 26, 2008. In this interview, Herman discusses the history of US influence in Latin America, and contextualizes this with what he says is an anti-democratic US policy throughout the Global South, designed to create a favorable investment climate for US corporations. He is asked how things are changing today with the popular election of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and many other recently-elected leftist presidents in Latin America. Is the US losing power and influence? What will this mean for the future?
A longtime critic of US foreign policy in Latin America, Herman is a Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and a contributor to Z Magazine since its founding in 1988. He is the author of numerous books, including his 1979 book, co-authored with Noam Chomsky, The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume I, and Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
The Washington Connection has an interesting history. When Chomsky and Herman wrote its precursor, they found their analysis of U.S. foreign policy unwelcome by the corporate media establishment. Warner Modular Publications (at that time a subsidiary member of the Warner communications and entertainment conglomerate) was set to release it, but when the parent company learned about the book in the fall of 1973, it condemned its “unpatriotic” scholarship. William Sarnoff, a high officer of the parent company, explained why the book upset him so much, citing the book’s “unpatriotic” argument that “the leadership in the United States, as a result of its dominant position and wide-ranging counter-revolutionary efforts, has been the most important single instigator, administrator, and moral and material sustainer of serious bloodbaths in the years that followed World War II.”
As a result, Chomsky and Herman explain in The Washington Connection’s introduction that:
Although 20,000 copies of the monograph were printed, and one (and the last) ad was placed in the New York Review of Books, Warner Publishing refused to allow distribution of the monograph at its scheduled publication date. Media advertising for the volume was cancelled and printed flyers that listed the monographs as one of the titles were destroyed. The officers of Warner Modular were warned that distribution of the document would result in their immediate dismissal.
Following this, Warner backed down a little, and formally agreed to not suppress the book: reaching a compromise with the lower-level publisher (who struggled for distribution of the monograph). However, before the compromise could be enacted the publishing house was shut down, with Warner selling the house’s “stocks of publications and contracts to a small and quite unknown company” effectively killing the book.
Taking a closer look at the book’s content, Chomsky and Herman argue that the “ideological pretense…that the United States is dedicated to furthering the cause of democracy and human rights throughout the world, though it may occasionally err in the pursuit of this objective” has been constructed to mask: “the basic fact…that the United States has organized under its sponsorship and protection a neo-colonial system of client states ruled mainly by terror and serving the interests of a small local and foreign business and military elite.”
Focusing largely on US support for the Latin American “National Security States,” Chomsky and Herman argue that U.S. corporations purposefully support (and in many instances create) fascist terror states in order to create a favorable investment climate. In exchange for a cut of the action, local military police-states brutally repress their population when it attempts to assert basic human rights. They write:
The proof of the pudding is that U.S. bankers and industrialists have consistently welcomed the “stability” of the new client fascist order, whose governments, while savage in their treatment of dissidents, priests, labor leaders, peasant organizers or others who threaten “order,” and at best indifferent to the mass of the population, have been accommodating to large external interests. In an important sense, therefore, the torturers in the client state are functionaries of IBM, Citibank, Allis Chalmers and the U.S. government, playing their assigned roles in a system that has worked according to choice and plan.
Chomsky and Herman cite official statements by State Department planner George Kennan, to illustrate the mindset behind US policy in Latin America and around the world. In 1948, Kennan wrote Policy Planning Study 23, stating that if the U.S. wanted to maintain (and expand) its position of world dominance, it could not truly respect human rights and democracy abroad. The document said:
We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only about 6 percent of its population…In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships that will permit us to maintain this disparity…To do so we will have to dispense with sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives…We should cease to talk about vague and…unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization.”
Kennan elaborated on this concept in a 1950 briefing of U.S. ambassadors to Latin American countries. Of prime importance was to prevent the spreading of the idea “that governments are responsible for the well being of their people.” To combat the proliferation of this idea, Kennan argued that “we should not hesitate before police repression by the local government…It is better to have a strong regime in power than a liberal one if it is indulgent and relaxed and penetrated by Communist.”

Leo Strauss y los amos del Poder en el nuevo orden mundial

Deja un comentario

Leo Strauss and the Grand Inquisitor
by Shadia B. Drury

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 24, Number 4.

There is a certain irony in the fact that the chief guru of the neoconservatives is a thinker who regarded religion merely as a political tool intended for the masses but not for the superior few. Leo Strauss, the German Jewish émigré who taught at the University of Chicago almost until his death in 1973, did not dissent from Marx’s view that religion is the opium of the people; but he believed that the people need their opium. He therefore taught that those in power must invent noble lies and pious frauds to keep the people in the stupor for which they are supremely fit.

Not all the neoconservatives have read Strauss. And those who have rarely understand him, for he was a very secretive thinker who expressed his ideas with utmost circumspection. But there is one thing that he made very clear: liberal secular society is untenable. Religion is necessary to provide political society with moral order and stability. Of course, this is a highly questionable claim. History makes it abundantly clear that religion has been a most destabilizing force in politics—a source of conflict, strife, and endless wars. But neoconservatives dogmatically accept the view of religion as a panacea for everything that ails America.

Using religion as a political tool has two equally unsavory consequences. First, when religious beliefs become the guide for public policy, the social virtues of tolerance, freedom, and plurality are undermined, if they are not extinguished altogether. Second, the use of religion as a political tool encourages the cultivation of an elite of liars and frauds who exempt themselves from the rules they apply to the rest of humanity. And this is a recipe for tyranny, not freedom or democracy.

There have always been those who deluded themselves into thinking that they were akin to gods who are entitled to rule over ordinary mortals. But no one has described this mentality more brilliantly than Dostoevsky, when he created the figure of the Grand Inquisitor. In his short story of the same title, Dostoevsky imagined that Jesus has returned to face a decadent and corrupt Church. As head of the Church, the Grand Inquisitor condemns Jesus to death, but not before having a long and interesting conversation with the condemned man. Jesus naively clings to the belief that what man needs above all else is freedom from the oppressive yoke of the Mosaic law, so that he can choose between good and evil freely according to the dictates of his conscience. But the Inquisitor explains to him that truth and freedom are the sources of humanity’s greatest anguish and that people will never be free because “they are weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious.” He declares that people can be happy only if they surrender their freedom and bow before miracle, mystery, and authority. Only then can people live and die peacefully, “and beyond the grave, they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity.” The Inquisitor explains that the “deception will be our suffering, for we shall be forced to lie.” But in the end, “they will marvel at us and look on us as gods.”

To say that Strauss’s elitism surpasses that of the Grand Inquisitor is an understatement. Undeniably, there are strong similarities. Like the Grand Inquisitor, Strauss thought that society must be governed by a pious elite (George Bush the second and the Christian fundamentalists who support him fit this role perfectly). Like the Grand Inquisitor, Strauss thought of religion as a pious fraud (something that would alarm the Christian fundamentalists who are allied with the

neoconservatives). And even though Strauss was sympathetic to Judaism, he nevertheless described it as a “heroic delusion” and a “noble dream.” Like the Grand Inquisitor, he thought that it was better for human beings to be victims of this noble delusion than to “wallow” in the “sordid” truth. And like the Grand Inquisitor, Strauss thought that the superior few should shoulder the burden of truth and in so doing, protect humanity from the “terror and hopelessness of life.”

All the similarities between Strauss and the Grand Inquisitor notwithstanding, the Straussian position surpasses the Grand Inquisitor in its delusional elitism as well as in its misanthropy. This shows that while one need not be a religious thinker to be misanthropic, religion is an excellent vehicle for implementing misanthropic policies in public life.

The Grand Inquisitor presents his ruling elite as suffering under the burden of truth for the sake of humanity. So, despite his rejection of Christ, the Grand Inquisitor is modeled on the Christian conception of a suffering God who bears the burden for humanity. In contrast, Strauss represents his ruling elite as pagan gods who are full of laughter. Instead of being grim and mournful like the Grand Inquisitor, they are intoxicated, erotic, and gay. And they are certainly not too concerned about the happiness of mere mortals. They have little pity or compassion for them. On the contrary, the pain, suffering, and tragedies of the mortals provide them with entertainment.

The Trojan wars and similar tragic atrocities were festivals for the gods, intended for their pleasure and amusement. Nietzsche thought that only when suffering is witnessed by gods did it become meaningful and heroic. Soaring high, Strauss discovered that there are no gods to witness human suffering; and finding the job vacant, he recruited his acolytes.

Strauss thought that the best way for ordinary human beings to raise themselves above the beasts is to be utterly devoted to their nation and willing to sacrifice their lives for it. He recommended a rabid nationalism and a militant society modelled on Sparta. He thought that this was the best hope for a nation to be secure against her external enemies as well as the internal threat of decadence, sloth, and pleasure. A policy of perpetual war against a threatening enemy is the best way to ward off political decay. And if the enemy cannot be found, then it must be invented.

For example, Saddam Hussein was an insignificant tyrant in a faraway land without the military power to threaten America. And he wasn’t allied with the Islamic fundamentalists who attacked the World Trade Center in 2001. But the neoconservatives who control the White House managed to inflate the threat to gargantuan proportions and launched the nation into a needless war. Even though they are not hardcore Straussians, neoconservatives share Strauss’s view that wealth, freedom, and prosperity make people soft, pampered, and depraved. And, like Strauss, they think of war as an antidote to moral decadence and depravity. And this should make us wonder if they purposely launched the nation into a needless war because they were convinced of the salutary effects of war as such.

There is a strong asceticism at the heart of the neoconservative ideology that explains why it appeals to the Christian Right. Neoconservatism dovetails nicely with the views that humanity is too wicked to be free; too much pleasure is sinful; and suffering is good because it makes man cry out to God for redemption. With the neoconservatives and the Christian Right in power, Americans can forget about the pursuit of happiness and look forward to perpetual war, death, and catastrophe. And in the midst of all the human carnage and calamity that such policies are bound to bring, the Olympian laughter of the Straussian gods will be heard by those who have ears to hear it. In short, the Straussian elite makes the Grand Inquisitor look compassionate and humane in comparison.

The fact that so many of the most powerful men in America are self-proclaimed disciples of Leo Strauss is rather troublesome. For example, Abram Shulsky, the director of the Office of Special Plans, which was created by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, was a student of Strauss. Shulsky was responsible for finding intelligence that would help to make the case for war in Iraq. We know now that the intelligence was false and misleading. Shulsky tells us that he learned from Strauss that “deception is the norm in political life.”10 But deception cannot be the norm in public life without subverting democracy and robbing people of the opportunity to deliberate freely in light of the facts.

Another important Straussian close to the Bush administration is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project for the New American Century, in which the neoconservative foreign policy is clearly outlined. Kristol wrote his thesis on Machiavelliæa theorist who was much admired by Strauss for everything except his lack of subtlety. Strauss endorsed Machiavellian tactics in politicsænot just lies and the manipulation of public opinion but every manner of unscrupulous conduct necessary to keep the masses in a state of heightened alert, afraid for their lives and their families and therefore willing to do whatever

was deemed necessary for the security of the nation. For Strauss as for Machiavelli, only the constant threat of a common enemy could save a people from becoming soft, pampered, and depraved. Strauss would have admired the ingenuity of a color code intended to inform Americans of the looming threats and present dangers, which in turn makes them more than willing to trade their liberty for a modicum of security.

Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense and assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney, is also a self-proclaimed follower of Strauss. Like many of Strauss’s students, he is animated by a sense of missionæa mission to save America from her secular liberal decadence. And what better solution is there to secular liberal sloth than a war effort? I am inclined to give these powerful students of Strauss the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they have no idea of the sinister depths to which Strauss’s political thought descends. And I think that by revealing aspects of Strauss’s dark philosophy, I may dissuade some of them from following Strauss too blindly into the abyss.

1. Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Grand Inquisitor with Related Chapters from The Brothers Karamazov, Constance Garnett, trans. (New York: Library of Liberal Arts, 1948). I am very suspicious of this interpretation of the message of Jesus. See my new book, Terror and Civilization: (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

2. Ibid., p. 30.

3. Ibid., p. 40.

4. Ibid., p. 31.

5. Ibid., p. 30.

6. Leo Strauss, “Why We Remain Jews: Can Jewish Faith and History Still Speak to Us?” in Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker, Kenneth L. Deutsch and Walter Nicgorski, eds. (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1994), p. 61.

7. Ibid., p. 61.

8. Leo Strauss, Philosophy And Law: Essays Toward the Understanding of Maimonides and His Predecessors, Fred Baumann, trans. (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1987), p. 18.

9. Leo Strauss, The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: Essays and Lectures, Thomas L. Pangle, ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 107–08.

10. Gary J. Schmitt and Abram N. Shulsky, “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (by Which We Do Not Mean Nous),” in Kenneth L. Deutsch and John A. Murley (eds.), Leo Strauss, the Straussians, and the American Regime (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999), p. 410.

Shadia B. Drury is Canada Research Chair in Social Justice at the University of Regina, where she is professor of philosophy and political science. Her most recent book is Terror and Civilization: Christianity, Politics, and the Western Psyche (Palgrave MacMillan, 2004).

Euro Políticos profesionales:¿plutocracia,mafia politica o angeles de la guarda divinos?

Deja un comentario

fundamentalismo democratico a la europea


Parece que la soberbia de los políticos tanto españoles en el Reino de España como los que “trabajan” en la Unión Europea ( espñoles o de donde fuere) es de tal tamaño que cada día se alejan más de la base social que los mantiene en esas divinas poltronas…tan ciegos y lejanos respecto de la realidad de millones de euro trabajadores . Mal va este proyecto pseudo democrático.Tal parece que en Europa se está construyendo un proyecto para y por las corporaciones, bajo el velo quimérico y colorido de fatuos fuegos ” de la alegría idealista a la kantiana: himno de Europa ) de una democracia que no es sino una partitocracia al servicio de los plutócratas,verdaderos dueños de la soberanía que han robado cual raposas a los trabajadores que son meros comparsas de esta farsa de democracia “de los ciudadanos”, que no son para la plutocracia(gobierno de los ricos) feudal posmoderna(alabada y adorada vilmente desde el pensiero debole pomoderno) sino viles consumidores de mercancía como lo es el ejemplo de la leche de vaca made in EU,leche que está envenenada …porque se ha envenenado a las vacas con ese ciego y voraz af´n de ganancias a la europea.
El Tratado de Lisboa debería haber sido votado en referendum en los 27 países,como se hizo en algunos países con el célebre “Proyecto de Constitución Europea”.¿Por qué no se hizo un solo referendum por el T de Lisboa en toda la UE?Buena pregunta que jamás van los políticos a plantearnos . ¿Esto es una democracia o es una mera seudo democracia formal , fundamentalista y demagógica?


« All together now | Mi blog ¡HABEMUS TRACTATUM! (Con el himno de la Alegría como música de fondo) FUENTE
AUTOR DE ESTE TEXTO: Tras su nombramiento por la Comisión Europea, Francisco Fonseca Morillo ocupará el puesto que durante 5 años desempeñó José Luis González:

Su trabajo pasa por suministrar información sobre la Unión Europea
Actualizado miércoles 03/06/2009 13:10 horasDisminuye el tamaño del textoAumenta el tamaño del textoLa Comisión Europea (CE) ha nombrado nuevo jefe de su representación en Madrid al vallisoletano Francisco Fonseca Morillo, hasta ahora director del área de Justicia, Derechos Fundamentales y Ciudadanía del Ejecutivo comunitario.

Fonseca Morillo ocupará el puesto de José Luis González Vallvé, quien se jubila tras desempeñar su labor como portavoz oficial de la CE en España desde el 17 de noviembre de 2003 hasta el 28 de febrero de este año. El ingeniero de Caminos y licenciado en Derecho, fue también responsable de las consejería de Fomento e Industria de la Junta de Castilla y León entre 1999 y 2003.

El nuevo jefe de la representación comenzó en 1986 su carrera dentro de la Comisión Europea, donde ha desempeñado diferentes cargos como representante comunitario en el Foro de Justicia Europea o en las reuniones de Eurojust (la Oficina de cooperación judicial de la UE) en La Haya. El recién nombrado delegado en Madrid por la Comisión, también asumió diferentes cargos en la Dirección General de Asuntos Económicos y Financieros y dentro del gabinete del que fue comisario de Justicia e Interior, Antonio Vitorino.

Fonseca Morillo es doctor en Leyes por la Universidad de Valladolid y licenciado en Ciencias Políticas y Sociología por la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, así como profesor de Derecho Internacional Público en excendencia de la Universidad de Valladolid.

Destaca, además, como autor de numerosas publicaciones y ha participado en la elaboración de muchas obras académicas sobre la Unión Europea.

Las representaciones de la CE informan a los ciudadanos sobre la labor de la Unión Europea (UE), proporcionan al Ejecutivo comunitario datos sobre las orientaciones y tendencias de la opinión pública del país.

Entre los cometidos que deberá desempeñar Fonseca Morillo en su nuevo cargo destaca, además, la labor de suministrar información sobre la UE a través de reconocidos puntos, como las bibliotecas públicas, los centros de asesoría a las empresas y los servicios de educación

A continuación Comentario del blog del Sr Fonseca al que Dvorsky envia un contra comentario que es el texto que aparece al comienzo de este post …

Diciembre 1, 2009 (3 votos, Puntuación media: 4.33 / 5)

Tras varias guerras que costaron la vida de millones de personas en el siglo XX, la creación de la Unión Europea supuso el inicio de una nueva era en la que los países europeos solucionarían sus problemas mediante el diálogo y no por las armas. Este experimento único en la historia, que empezó sin saberse muy bien si resistiría el paso del tiempo, continúa en la actualidad más fuerte que nunca, y hoy, 1 de diciembre de 2009, tras más de 50 años de crecimiento, se puede afirmar sin asomo de duda que los miembros de la UE disfrutan de abundantes beneficios: el mercado único, el euro, la supresión de las fronteras, un medio ambiente más limpio, la reunificación con nuestros hermanos del Este, la solidaridad de los fondos regionales y muchos más.

Sin embargo, las normas actuales se concibieron para una UE mucho más pequeña, que no tenía ante sí desafíos a escala planetaria como el cambio climático, una recesión mundial o la delincuencia transfronteriza internacional. La UE tiene el potencial para enfrentarse a esos problemas y el compromiso de hacerlo, pero solo podrá conseguirlo si mejora su forma de trabajar. Ese es el objetivo del Tratado de Lisboa, que entra en vigor hoy: un tratado que hace que la UE sea más democrática, eficiente y transparente, al tiempo que da a los ciudadanos y a los Parlamentos nacionales más información sobre lo que ocurre en la Unión y dota a Europa de una voz más clara y más fuerte en el mundo, protegiendo a la vez los intereses nacionales. He aquí las principales novedades que arrancan hoy, 1 de diciembre 2009, y que nos benefician directamente a todos:

Un equipo para garantizar una voz coral en el mundo: se crea un nuevo cargo de Alto Representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad que a su vez es Vicepresidente de la Comisión afín de promover la acción de la UE en la escena internacional y de defender sus intereses y sus valores en el exterior. La británica Catherine Ashton ha sido la elegida para este cargo. Para impulsar su labor con continuidad y coherencia, el Consejo Europeo se dota de un Presidente del Consejo Europeo por un máximo de cinco años. De ese modo, las acciones de la UE serán más visibles y claras. El nuevo Presidente, que asumirá sus funciones el 1 de enero de 2010, es el belga Herman Van Rompuy. Además, el Presidente de la Comisión, José Manuel Durao Barroso completará la Trinidad para lo que se refiere a la dimensión exterior de las diferentes políticas europeas. Como en la Trinidad, tres personas para una sola voz.
Más democracia: los Parlamentos nacionales de los respectivos Estados miembros tendrán un papel más relevante a la hora de examinar la legislación de la UE antes de que sea aprobada; así se cerciorarán de que la UE no rebasa sus competencias en asuntos que deberían tratarse a nivel nacional o local. Las competencias del Parlamento Europeo aumentarán ya que la cámara co-decidirá en pie de igualdad con el Consejo en prácticamente la totalidad de las áreas legislativas, y con ello los eurodiputados elegidos directamente por todos nosotros tendrán más voz sobre una gama más amplia de asuntos que afectan directamente a la ciudadanía (no hay que olvidar que más de la mitad de las leyes adoptadas por el Parlamento español son transposiciones directas de leyes europeas aprobadas por el Parlamento europeo).
Más participación ciudadana: el Tratado contribuye a que la UE defienda mejor los intereses de los ciudadanos, dándoles la palabra sobre los temas europeos mediante la nueva iniciativa ciudadana, gracias a la cual, presentando un millón de firmas, se puede invitar a la Comisión Europea a que presente nuevas propuestas legislativas.
Más derechos: el Tratado protege aún más sus derechos gracias a la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales. Lisboa reconoce los derechos, libertades y principios enunciados en la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales, haciendo que esta sea jurídicamente vinculante por primera vez y sometiendo a control jurisdiccional la acción de la Unión.
Mayor eficiencia y legitimidad en la toma de decisiones: el Tratado de Lisboa racionaliza los procedimientos de toma de decisiones de la UE. En el Consejo, se ampliará la adopción de decisiones por mayoría cualificada, en vez de por unanimidad. De esa manera, se actuará de forma más rápida y eficaz. La mayoría cualificada significa que, desde 2014, las decisiones del Consejo habrán de ser aprobadas por el 55 % de los Estados miembros, que reúnan como mínimo el 65 % de la población europea. Así esta forma las decisiones tienen una doble legitimidad democrática y demográfica.
Más competencias: el Tratado de Lisboa contiene nuevas e importantes disposiciones que fortalecen la capacidad de la UE para luchar contra la delincuencia transfronteriza internacional, la inmigración ilegal, la trata de seres humanos y el tráfico de armas y de drogas. Lisboa también contribuye a tener una política más coherente en áreas que afectan directamente a nuestra calidad de vida, como la lucha contra el cambio climático y el establecimiento de una verdadera política energética europea común.
El Tratado de Lisboa supone el fin de un período de adaptaciones constitucionales de la Unión en medio de una serie de cambios geoestratégicos y político-económicos que han cambiado radicalmente en los últimos 20 años el papel de Europa y de sus Estados en un mundo global. Estoy convencido que éste es un Tratado para el siglo XXI, que permitirá colocar a la UE en la vanguardia del mundo y hacer que nuestros valores de democracia, libertad y solidaridad se propaguen por cada rincón del planeta.

Y porque “Habemus Tractatum”, hoy hay que volverse a nuestros símbolos como muestra de nuestra identidad común. Brindemos con el Himno a la Alegría de la Novena Sinfonía de Beethoven como la música en la que todos nos reconocemos como europeos.

Madrid (Europa), 1 de diciembre de 2009

latrocinio banquero avalado por el (pseudo)socialismo (pseudo)democrático

Deja un comentario


Deja un comentario Este es el sitio donde encontré el video, que porcierto es un sitio imprescindible, a mi modo de ver

Orwell,Kafka,Premio Nobel de la Paz e Imperialismo(s)

Deja un comentario

Older Entries