Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

The Quiet Revolution Rolls Forward


“ Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis which is es­sentially different from any­thing that has been previous­ly experienced. Other societ­ies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow develop­ment of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the pros- pect of a fundamental alter­ation of the beliefs and insti­tutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests. . . .

Civilization is being uproot­ed from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organization which is as ar­tificial and mechanical as a modern factory” — Christo­pher Dawson, Enquiries Into Religion and Culture.

+ + +

Most of Satan’s work in the world he takes care to keep hidden. But two small shafts of light have been thrown onto his work for me just recently. The first, a short ar­ticle in the Association of Catho­lic Women’s ACW Review; the sec­ond, a remark ( which at first sur­prised me) from a priest in Russia who claimed that we now, in the West, live in a Communist society. These shafts of light help, especial­ly, to explain the onslaught of of­ficialdom that in many countries worldwide has so successfully been removing the rights of par­ents to be the primary educators and protectors of their children.

The ACW Review examined the corrosive work of the “ Frankfurt School” — a group of German­American scholars who developed highly provocative and original perspectives on contemporary so­ciety and culture, drawing on He­gel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Weber. Not that their idea of a “ cultural revolution” was particu­larly new.

“ Until now,” wrote Joseph Comte de Maistre ( 1753- 1821), who for 15 years was a Freemason, “ nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion: But here an important question arises; can a nation not die on its own soil, with­out resettlement or invasion, by al­lowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is.”

What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolu­tion would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Toward the end of 1922 the Communist Inter­national (Comintern) began to con­sider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting was organized at the Marx- Engels Institute in Moscow. Its aim was to clarify the concept of, and give con­crete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution.

Amongst those present were Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian aristo­crat, son of a banker, who had be­come a Communist during the First World War; a good Marxist theore­tician he developed the idea of “ Revolution and Eros” — sexual instinct used as an instrument of de­struction) and Willi Munzenberg ( whose proposed solution was to “organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have cor­rupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dic­tatorship of the proletariat”).

“It was,” said Ralph de Toledano ( 1916- 2007) the conservative au­thor and cofounder of the National Review, a meeting “perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.”

Lenin died in 1924. By this time, however, Stalin was beginning to look on Munzenberg, Lukacs, and like- thinkers as “ revisionists.” In June 1940, Munzenberg fled to the south of France where, on Stalin’s orders, a NKVD assassination squad caught up with him and hanged him from a tree.

In the summer of 1924, after be­ing attacked for his writings by the Fifth Comintern Congress, Lukacs moved to Germany, where he chaired the first meeting of a group of Communist- oriented sociolo­gists, a gathering that was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School.

This “ school” ( designed to put flesh on their revolutionary pro­gram) was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für So­zialforschung. To begin with, school and institute were indistin­guishable. In 1923 the institute was officially established, and funded by Felix Weil (1898-1975).

Weil was born in Argentina and at the age of nine was sent to attend school in Germany. He attended the universities in Tübingen and Frank­furt, where he graduated with a doc­toral degree in political science. While at these universities he be­came increasingly interested in so­cialism and Marxism. According to the intellectual historian Martin Jay, the topic of his dissertation was “ the practical problems of imple­menting socialism.”

Carl Grünberg, the institute’s di­rector from 1923- 1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the insti­tute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the institute’s re­search. When Hitler came to power, the institute was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major U.S. universities — Colum­bia, Princeton, Brandeis, and Berke­ley.

The school included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse (denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of lib­eration which “opens the way for li­cense cloaked as liberty”); Max Horkheimer; Theodor Adorno; the popular writer Erich Fromm; Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas — possibly the school’s most influen­tial representative.

Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individ­ual had the belief — or even the hope of belief — that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hope­lessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution.

Their task, therefore, was as swift­ly as possible to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of ev­ery sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the “oppressive” order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a vi­rus — “continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means” as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their “quiet” cultural revolution — but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future — the School recom­mended (among other things): 1) The creation of racism offens­es.

2) Continual change to create confusion.

3) The teaching of sex and ho­mosexuality to children.

4) The undermining of schools and teachers’ authority.

5) Huge immigration to destroy identity.

6) The promotion of excessive drinking.

7) Emptying of churches.

8) An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.

9) Dependency on the state or state benefits.

10) Control and dumbing down of media.

11) Encouraging the breakdown of the family.

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of “pansexualism” — the search for pleasure, the exploi­tation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of tradition­al relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would: Attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from fami­lies their rights as primary educators of their children.

Abolish differences in the educa­tion of boys and girls.

Abolish all forms of male domi­nance — hence the presence of women in the armed forces.

Declare women to be an “ op­pressed class” and men as “oppres­sors.”

Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term oper­ation thus: “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.”

The school believed there were two types of revolution: a) politi­cal and b) cultural. Cultural revolu­tion demolishes from within. “Mod­ern forms of subjection are marked by mildness.” They saw it as a long­term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, edu­cation, media, sex, and popular cul­ture.

The Family

The school’s “ Critical Theory” preached that the “authoritarian per­sonality” is a product of the patri­archal family — an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written, in the Communist Manifesto, about the radical notion of a “community of women” and in The German Ide­ology

of 1845, written disparaging­ly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the “Crit­ical Theory”: the necessity of break­ing down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that “even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.”

Following Karl Marx, the school stressed how the “authoritarian per­sonality” is a product of the patri­archal family — it was Marx who wrote so disparagingly about the idea of the family being the basic unit of society. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the mas­culine gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of “women’s liber­ation” and by the new left move­ment in the 1960s.

They proposed transforming our culture into a female- dominated one. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, one of their members, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matri­archy was the only genuine family type of “ natural society.” Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of matriarchal theory. Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of “essential” sexu­al differences, as the romantics had thought but were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially deter­mined. His dogma was the precedent for the radical feminist pronounce­ments that, today, appear in nearly every major newspaper and televi­sion program.

The revolutionaries knew exact­ly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded.


Lord Bertrand Russell joined with the Frankfurt School in its ef­fort at mass social engineering and spilled the beans in his 1951 book,

The Impact of Science on Society.

He wrote: “ Physiology and psy­chology afford fields for scientific technique which still await devel­opment.” The importance of mass psychology “has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. . . .

“The social psychologists of the future will have a number of class­es of schoolchildren on whom they will try different methods of produc­ing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the in­fluence of home is obstructive. Sec­ond, that not much can be done un­less indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opin­ion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccen­tricity. But I anticipate. It is for fu­ture scientists to make these max­ims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray. . . .

“ When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Mag­azine

(“The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness”), Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and Adorno now com­pletely dominate the universities, “teaching their own students to re­place reason with ‘Politically Cor­rect’ ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School. The witch­hunt on today’s campuses is mere­ly the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’ — ‘tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right’ — enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School.”


Dr. Timothy Leary gave us anoth­er glimpse into the mind of the Frankfurt School in his account of the work of the Harvard University Psychedelic Drug Project, “Flash­back.” He quoted a conversation that he had with Aldous Huxley: “These brain drugs, mass produced in the laboratories, will bring about vast changes in society. This will happen with or without you or me. All we can do is spread the word. The obstacle to this evolution, Tim­othy, is the Bible.”

Leary then went on: “We had run up against the Judeo-Christian com­mitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevita­bly lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good-natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.”

One of the directors of the Author­itarian Personality project, R. Nev-i­tt Sanford, played a pivotal role in the usage of psychedelic drugs. In 1965, he wrote in a book issued by the publishing arm of the UK’s Tavistock Institute, “ The nation, seems to be fascinated by our 40,000 or so drug addicts who are seen as alarmingly wayward people who must be curbed at all costs by expensive police activity. Only an uneasy Puritanism could support the practice of focusing on the drug addicts (rather than our 5 million al­coholics) and treating them as a po­lice problem instead of a medical one, while suppressing harmless drugs such as marijuana and peyo­te along with the dangerous ones.”

The leading propagandists of to­day’s drug lobby base their argu­ment for legalization on the same scientific quackery spelled out all those years ago by Dr. Sanford.

Such propagandists include the multibillionaire atheist George So­ros who chose, as one of his first do­mestic programs, to fund efforts to challenge the efficacy of America’s $ 37- billion- a- year war on drugs. The Soros-backed Lindesmith Cen­ter serves as a leading voice for Americans who want to decriminal­ize drug use. “Soros is the ‘Daddy Warbucks’ of drug legalization,” claimed Joseph Califano Jr. of Co­lumbia University’s National Cen­ter on Addiction and Substance Abuse’ ( The Nation, September 2, 1999).

Music, Television, And Popular Culture

Adorno was to become head of a “music studies” unit, where in his

Theory of Modern Music
he pro­moted the prospect of unleashing atonal and other popular music as a weapon to destroy society, degen­erate forms of music to promote mental illness. He said the U. S. could be brought to its knees by the use of radio and television to promote a culture of pessimism and despair — by the late 1930s he (to­gether with Horkheimer) had mi­grated to Hollywood.

The expansion of violent video­games also well supported the school’s aims.


In his book The Closing of the American Mind, Alan Bloom ob­served how “Marcuse appealed to university students in the sixties with a combination of Marx and Freud. In Eros and Civilization and

One Dimensional Man,
Marcuse promised that the overcoming of capitalism and its false conscious­ness will result in a society where the greatest satisfactions are sexu­al. Rock music touches the same chord in the young. Free sexual ex­pression, anarchism, mining of the irrational unconscious, and giving it free rein are what they have in common.”

The Media

The modern media — not least Arthur “Punch” Sulzberger Jr., who took charge of The New York Times

in 1992 — drew greatly on the Frankfurt School’s study The Au­thoritarian Personality. (New York: Harper, 1950). In his book Arro­gance

(Warner Books, 1993), former

CBS News
reporter Bernard Gold­berg noted of Sulzberger that he “still believes in all those old six­ties notions about ‘liberation’ and ‘ changing the world man’. . . . In fact, the Punch years have been a steady march down PC Boulevard, with a newsroom fiercely dedicat­ed to every brand of diversity ex­cept the intellectual kind.”

In 1953 the institute moved back to the University of Frankfurt. Ador­no died in 1955 and Horkheimer in 1973. The Institute of Social Re­search continued, but what was known as the Frankfurt School did not. The “ cultural Marxism” that has since taken hold of our schools and universities — that “ political correctness,” which has been de­stroying our family bonds, our reli­gious tradition and our entire cul­ture — sprang from the Frankfurt School.

It was these intellectual Marxists who later, during the anti-Vietnam demonstrations, coined the phrase, “make love, not war”; it was these intellectuals who promoted the di­alectic of “ negative” criticism; it was these theoreticians who dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed. It was their concept that led to the current fad for the re­writing of history, and to the vogue for “deconstruction.” Their mantras: “sexual differences are a contract; if it feels good, do it; do your own thing.”

In an address at the U.S. Naval Academy in August 1999, Dr. Ger­ald L. Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret)., gave a background briefing on the Frankfurt School, reminding his au­dience that it was the “foot soldiers” of the Frankfurt School who intro­duced the “ sensitivity training” techniques used in public schools over the past 30 years (and now em­ployed by the U.S. military to edu­cate the troops about “sexual harass­ment”).

During “ sensitivity” training, teachers were told not to teach but to “facilitate.” Classrooms became centers of self-examination where children talked about their own sub­jective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.

Atkinson continued: “ The Au­thoritarian personality, studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender pro­moted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries un­der the guise of ‘ women’s libera­tion’ and the new left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the Amer­ican male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a pro­moter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, “. . . the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculin­ity and femininity to general hu­manness.”

On April 17, 1962, Maslow gave a lecture to a group of nuns at Sacred Heart, a Catholic wom­en’s college in Massachusetts. He noted in a diary entry how the talk had been very “ successful,” but he found that very fact troubling. “ They shouldn’t applaud me,” he wrote, “ they should attack. If they were fully aware of what I was do­ing, they would [ attack]” ( Jour­nals,

p. 157).

The Network

In her booklet Sex & Social En­gineering

(Family Education Trust, 1994), Valerie Riches observed how in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were intensive parliamentary campaigns taking place emanating from a number of organizations in the field of birth control (i.e., con­traception, abortion, sterilization).

“From an analysis of their annu­al reports, it became apparent that a comparatively small number of peo­ple were involved to a surprising degree in an array of pressure groups. This network was not only linked by personnel, but by funds, ideology, and sometimes addresses: it was also backed by vested inter­ests and supported by grants, in some cases by government depart­ments. At the heart of the network was the Family Planning Associa­tion (FPA) with its own collection of offshoots. What we unearthed was a power structure with enor­mous influence.

“ Deeper investigation revealed that the network, in fact extended further afield, into eugenics, popu­lation control, birth control, sexual and family law reforms, sex and health education. Its tentacles reached out to publishing houses, medical, educational and research establishments, women’s organi­zations and marriage guidance — anywhere where influence could be exerted. It appeared to have great influence over the media, and over permanent officials in relevant government departments, out of all proportion to the num­bers involved.

“ During our investigations, a speaker at a Sex Education Sympo­sium in Liverpool outlined tactics of sex education saying: ‘If we do not get into sex education, children will simply follow the mores of their parents.’ The fact that sex education was to be the vehicle for peddlers of secular humanism soon became apparent.

“However, at that time the power of the network and the full implica­tions of its activities were not fully understood. It was thought that the situation was confined to Britain. The international implications had not been grasped.

“Soon after, a little book was pub­lished with the intriguing title The Men Behind Hitler: A German Warning to the World. Its thesis was that the eugenics movement, which had gained popularity ear­ly in the century, had gone under­ground following the holocaust in Nazi Germany, but was still active and functioning through organi­zations promoting abortion, eutha­nasia, sterilization, mental health, etc. The author urged the reader to look at his home country and neighboring countries, for he would surely find that members and committees of these organiza­tions would cross- check to a re­markable extent. “Other books and papers from in­dependent sources later confirmed this situation. . . . A remarkable book was also published in America which documented the activities of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States ( SIECUS). It was entitled The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revo­lution.

SIECUS was set up in 1964 and lost no time in engaging in a program of social engineering by means of sex education in the schools.

“Its first executive director was Mary Calderone, who was also closely linked to Planned Parent­hood, the American equivalent of the British FPA. According to The SIECUS Circle, Calderone support­ed sentiments and theories put for­ward by Rudolph Dreikus, a human-i­st, such as: “merging or reversing the sexes or sex roles; “ liberating children from their families; “ abolishing the family as we know it.”

In their book Mind Siege (Word Publishing, 2000) Tim LaHaye and David A. Noebel confirmed Riches’ findings of an international net­work.

“The leading authorities of Sec­ular Humanism may be pictured as the starting lineup of a baseball team: pitching is John Dewey; catching is Isaac Asimov; first base is Paul Kurtz; second base is Corl­iss Lamont; third base is Bertrand Russell; shortstop is Julian Huxley; left fielder is Richard Dawkins; cen­ter fielder is Margaret Sanger; right fielder is Carl Rogers; manager is ‘Christianity is for losers’ Ted Turn­er; designated hitter is Mary Cal­derone; utility players include the hundreds listed in the back of Hu­manist Manifesto I and II, includ­ing Eugenia C. Scott, Alfred Kinsey, Abraham Maslow, Erich Fromm, Rollo May, and Betty Friedan.

“In the grandstands sit the spon­soring or sustaining organizations, such as the . . . Frankfurt School; the left-wing of the Democratic Party; the Democratic Socialists of Ameri­ca; Harvard University; Yale Uni­versity; University of Minnesota; University of California (Berkeley); and two thousand other colleges and universities.”

A Practical Example

A practical example of how the tidal wave of Maslow-think is en­gulfing English schools was re­vealed in an article in the National Association of Catholic Families’

Catholic Family
newspaper (August 2000), where James Caffrey warned about the Citizenship (PSHE) pro­gram which was shortly to be draft­ed into the National Curriculum.

“We need to look carefully at the vocabulary used in this new sub­ject,” he wrote, “and, more impor­tantly, discover the philosophical basis on which it is founded. The clues to this can be found in the word ‘ choice’ which occurs fre­quently in the Citizenship docu­mentation and the great emphasis placed on pupils’ discussing and ‘clarifying’ their own views, values and choices about any given issue.

This is nothing other than the con­cept known as ‘Values Clarification’ — a concept anathema to Catholi­cism, or indeed, to Judaism and Is­lam.”

If we allow their subversion of values and interests to continue, we will, in future generations, lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned, says Atkin­son. A reading of history (it is all in mainstream historical accounts) tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have — our in­dividual freedoms. “What we are at present experi­encing,” writes Philip Trower in a letter to this writer, “is a blend of two schools of thought; the Frank­furt School and the liberal tradition going back to the 18th-century En­lightenment. The Frankfurt School has of course its remote origins in the 18th- century Enlightenment. But like Lenin’s Marxism it is a breakaway movement. The immedi­ate aims of both classical liberalism and the Frankfurt School have been in the main the same ( vide your 11 points above) but the final end is different. For liberals they lead to ‘improving’ and ‘perfecting’ West­ern Culture, for the Frankfurt School to bringing about its destruction.

“Unlike hard-line Marxists, the Frankfurt School does not make any plans for the future. [But] the Frankfurt School seems to be more far-sighted than our classical liber­als and secularists. At least they see the moral deviations they promote will in the end make social life im­possible or intolerable. But this leaves a big question mark over what a future conducted by them would be like.”

Meanwhile, the Quiet Revolution rolls forward.

+ + +

(Tim Matthews is the editor of Catholic Family News, the news ser­vice of the National Association of Catholic Families, UK. See their web site at: )

1 posted on 12/07/2008 2:33:16 AM PST by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII
nation, seems to be fascinated by our 40,000 or so drug addicts who are seen as alarmingly wayward people who must be curbed at all costs by expensive police activity.

Curiously, I was 11,281 of those drug addicts.

But I got better.

2 posted on 12/07/2008 2:36:25 AM PST by Lazamataz (Proud author of abstract semi-religious dogmatic hoooey with a decidedly fringe feel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII; uglybiker; MeanWestTexan

> Until now,” wrote Joseph Comte de Maistre ( 1753- 1821), who for 15 years was a Freemason...

Precisely what the Devil does Maistre’s Freemasonry have to do with any of this???

4 posted on 12/07/2008 2:50:42 AM PST by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII

Thanks for posting Gonzo. sure ties together a long line of collectivist work to destroy individual freedom.
Evil is easy to recognize.

9 posted on 12/07/2008 4:08:18 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII

The fight has been going on for a long time and it will take a long time to turn things around. I had hoped that the end of the Soviet Union was the beginning of the end of collectivism, but I was wrong.

15 posted on 12/07/2008 9:13:39 AM PST by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII
"Civilization is being uproot­ed from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organization which is as ar­tificial and mechanical as a modern factory” "

Some will fight the collective quietly, some not so quietly. Until the Human spirit is replenished and free, there will be no rest.

17 posted on 12/09/2008 10:57:24 AM PST by Earthdweller (Socialism makes you feel better about oppressing people.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII


18 posted on 12/11/2008 3:57:12 PM PST by ebiskit (South Park Republican ( I see Red People ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII


20 posted on 11/28/2009 9:50:59 AM PST by erman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

23 posted on 11/29/2009 12:39:53 AM PST by narses ('in an odd way this is cheering news!'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GonzoII


28 posted on 05/15/2010 9:32:42 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson