Site icon Free Life



David Davis

Libertarians are unfortunately quite good at viewing their philosophy (or the several ones?) in isolation – in a vacuum as it were. In this respect we often fall victim to the chronic psychological condition, suffered by most lefties and other types of theoretical fascists, which I now call Marxistitis; this condition is sometimes compicated by acute bouts of  massive watery Verbose-Hegeliorrhoea. (These are NOT links! I don’t put links in red – it’s just that I have not written their two wikipages yet.)

We often tend to get a bit like that when “two or three of us are gathered together”… we think the battle of ideas is won, merely because we are right (of course we know we are, and we even know that…that fascist leftism will crumble into dust eventually.)

But not yet. And in the meantime, the forces of wickedness are daily gaining ground, and we are losing even the battle for liberty in Libertarianism’s country of birth, and its civilisational “range” (I use “range” in the zoological sense here, as of an area that’s effectively benign for a species and in which it occupies ecological niches).

Yes, we now have blogs – and ours are good, and better than the enemy’s, who howls “FOUL!” (because we know we are right.) So what? Cisco and the fat-pipe-people (good name for a “beat group”, yes? I think they are called “bands” now…) can pull the plug, or else our ISPs could be nobbled. So we could all go down in the end, and have to become as silent as 20-odd years ago, if a dash of Liberarian Nationalism is not, I think, injected, in order to at last bring about Sovereign Libertarian Polities (or even one.) I have got into deep shit for this on here before, but I think it matters.

Here’s Robert Henderson:-

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>


Robert Henderson


1. What is patriotism?
2. The value of patriotism
3. Tribes are natural
4. Nations are tribes writ large
5. The importance of a national territory
6. The democratic value of nations
7. What the individual owes to the nation
8. The liberal internationalist
9. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotism


Twenty twenty one
And the pogroms come
Because no public One
Would heed Nature’s thrum
Saying ever on
Before each one
The tribe must come.

1. What is patriotism?

By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning a
land, of instinctively favouring your own country’s men and women,
of knowing that the interest of the “tribe” must come before
everything else. By this definition patriotism is something which the
vast majority of human beings can understand, – the only people who may
be genuinely immune to such comprehension are those who are severely
mentally retarded and those with a personality disorder such as autism
which reduces their ability to understand the social context.

The ease and near universality of understanding sets patriotism apart
from ideologies such as Marxism and liberal internationalism which ask
the individual to master both the tenets of the ideology and complicated
arguments to support of the ideology against attack Those who respond
to the call of patriotism cannot be hoodwinked and manipulated by the
few because almost everyone understands what patriotism is
instinctively. Contrast this with the fate of the majority of those
who, while professing to be adherents of an intellectually demanding
ideology , actually have little understanding of it, either because
they are intellectually lazy or because they lack the intellectual
wherewithal to master the ideology. Such people are left in the position
of the laity in Europe in mediaeval times when the use of Latin in both
translations of the Bible and church rites meant that the vast majority
of the population were left at the mercy of the a small clerical elite
who simply told them what to believe whether or not it was sanctioned by
the Scriptures.

2. The value of patriotism

The value of patriotism lies in its ability to produce social
coherence and an enduring and discrete population . Without patriotism
a country becomes no more than a geographical expression and is ready
prey for colonisation by overt conquest or covert conquest through
mass immigration.

The notion , assiduously disseminated by liberal internationalists,
that human beings are interchangeable social atoms who may live as
readily in one society as another is a recipe for national suicide,
because it embraces policies such as mass immigration which directly
lead to the weakening and ultimately to the destruction of their own
nations. Of course, for the liberal internationalist the destruction
of nation states and the subordination of nations are desired ends ,
but this is predicated on the demonstrably false premise that diverse
populations will live as peacefully and productively as homogeneous ones
. Indeed, the common internationalist claim is that diverse societies
will be stronger and, by implication, more enduring than homogenous
ones. The internationalists have no meaningful grounds for believing
this, for the whole experience of human history and the world as it
is today says that diversity of race and ethnicity in the same
territory equates to violence and social incoherence. There is
literally no example of a diverse society which has not suffered from
its diversity.

Ironically, the consequence of mixed populations is not a diminishing
of national/tribal sentiment, but an inflation of it. A people secure
in its own territory does not need to engage in constant national
expression because nothing threatens it: a people in a mixed society
must constantly do so because all the ethnic/racial groups are
necessarily in conflict because of the need for each to compete for
power and resources for their own group.

3. Tribes are natural

The sense of being separate, of belonging to a discrete group with
identifiable characteristics is a necessary part of being human
because Man is a social animal. All social animals have to have
boundaries to know where the group begins and ends. This is because a
social animal must operate within a hierarchy and a hierarchy can only
exist where there are boundaries. No boundaries, no hierarchy, because
no individual could ever know what the dominance/submission situation
was within their species, or at least within those members of the
species with whom they interact.

Where does “must operate within a hierarchy” come from? First the
observed facts: all social animals do produce hierarchies – although
these vary considerably in form – and human beings always produce
hierarchies, whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a
great modern city.

Why do social animals always form hierarchies? For animals other than
Man the answer is I think simple enough: only by forming hierarchies can
social groups cohere. This is most probably because animals vary
considerably in their physical and mental qualities. Observe any animal,
even the simplest single cell organism, and differences between
individuals within the species will become apparent. Some are more
vigorous than others, some larger, some, more adventurous and so on.
Individuals will also vary by age and, in sexually reproducing species,

In a solitary animal the practical consequences of differences between
individuals will be decided by direct competition, most commonly by the
formation of territories and the attempted monopoly of mates and food
within the territory, with the best endowed animals on average being
more successful.

When an animal is social, differences in individual quality have to be
resolved by something other than the methods used by solitary animals
such as scent marking of territory boundaries and serious fighting
because the animals have to live in close proximity. Competition for
desirable goods still occurs, most notably competition for mates, but
normally within behaviours which are not fatal to other members of the
group or behaviours which are so disruptive as to threaten the survival
of the group. The upshot of this social accommodation is the formation
of different social niches into which individuals with different
qualities ad histories fit.

Group behaviour is a compromise between the immediate advantage of the
individual and the diffuse advantages derived from group activity. The
compromise is given structure by hierarchies, whether that be a fixed
biological distinction by sex or caste (for example, social bees) or a
transient one due to the age of an animal. Hierarchies are built on the
differences between individuals and the more rigid the hierarchical
structure the greater will be the selective pressures to produce
individuals in the right proportions to fill the various social niches
within the group.

Consider what would happen if hierarchies did not exist. There would be
constant conflict within the group because no individual would have
cause to defer to another except from fear of physical harm and such
fear is a blunt and very limited instrument of social control, whether
it be of humans or animals. It is a strategy more suited to the solitary
animal than the social one.

Hierarchies also make sense in terms of the development of social
animals. Social animals are ultimately descended from asocial animals.
The movement from asocial to social animal is presumably akin to the
evolutionary process whereby a parasite is converted to a symbiotic
partner. It is a process of gradual behavioural accommodation.

Social animals on the bottom rung of the social animal ladder may do
little more than associate together at certain times. The next rung up
and the animal frequently associates with others of its kind. One more
step and the animal forms more or less permanent groupings. And so on
until we reach the ultimate social animal: Man.

The gradual evolution of social behaviour of itself points to the need
for hierarchy, because at each stage of the evolution the natural
overtly selfish behaviour of the original solitary animal has to be
modified. That modification will only come through natural selection
working on behavioural traits which favour more complete socialisation.

What about human beings? Are they not capable of breaking the biological
bounds which capture animals? Does not their immense intelligence and
possession of language place them in another category of being? Could
Man not simply decide not to behave in a non-hierarchical manner? The
fact that human beings have never done so is of itself sufficient
evidence for all but the most ideologically committed nurturist to
decide that human beings cannot do it and to conclude that the forming
of hierarchies is part of the human template. However, to that fact can
be added another, the dominance/submission behaviour which every person
witnesses daily not merely in positions of formal dominance and
subordination such as the workplace, but in every aspect of social life.

Societies which consist of human groups which see themselves as
separate disrupt the creation of a healthy hierarchy. Instead of
there being a single hierarchy within an homogenous group (defining
homogenous as a group which sees itself as a group), there are competing
hierarchies formed within each group and a further overarching hierarchy
formed from the various groups themselves. No individual feels secure ,
there is constant tension between groups. There is no common bond of
trust between people sharing the same territorial house.

Within each group the natural hierarchy is disrupted , because in
addition to the natural competition for higher status within the
group, there will also be competition brought about by the need for
action to deal with the competition from the other groups within the
territory. The consequence of such inter-group competition is
frequently for the elites of a group to be divided between appeasers
and fighters. This internal struggle weakens the group in itself, and
if the appeasers win, will force a policy on the group which is in most
cases detrimental to their group interest. – the only exception is where
the group is faced with the alternative of complete extermination.

4. Nations are tribes writ large

Nations are tribes writ large. They are remarkably durable. Empires
invariably fall but a true nation is potentially eternal unless utterly
destroyed through an act of genocide. Even the loss of a homeland – the
most traumatic loss any nation can sustain – does not destroy a people
as the Jews have emphatically shown for nearly two thousand years.

A shared faith or political ideology does not make a nation. Muslims
may claim to be one people but the reality is very different as the
continual strife between Muslims bears witness. Not only is there the
major division between Shias and Sunnis, Muslim dominated states of the
same ostensible branch of Islam are often hostile to each other, while
Muslim terrorists/freedom fighters (take your pick) willingly kill
fellow Muslims – women and children included – in large numbers.

Similarly, Marxist Leninists in the Soviet Union and Red China may have
maintained the fiction to the bitter end of the Soviet Bloc that the
international proletariat was as one , but the substantial deviations
between their ideologies and the viciously repressive measures they
used to deny their own proles contact with outside world (and hence
with the rest of the proletariat) told another tale.

Today, the doctrine of liberal internationalism pretends to a
universality of human experience and commonality which is refuted
every day by the manifold social, ethnic and racial strife throughout
the world.

The Jews are something of an oddity. Until the modern state of Israel
was founded in 1948 they had been without a homeland for nearly two
millennia. Because of that they were able to convert their religion
into a cultural suit to be worn by all adherents in a way that Islam
and Christianity or any political ideology never could. Denuded of
their own land, they could neither be oppressed by an invader nor
oppress others by invasion. They could not exercise state power. All
they had left was cultural power, whether that be intellectual or
economic. The consequence was that Jewish culture became the badge
of the Jew, not merely his religion.

Nations are organic growths. They cannot be constructed consciously as
the “nation-builders” of the period of European de-colonisation
fondly imagined and their liberal internationalist successors today
continue to at least pretend to believe. This is so because nations are
developed through the sociological process of establishing trust within
the group. This only happens when others are recognised as belonging
naturally to the group. That does not mean that every member of the
nation is seen as equal as an individual, whether for reasons of
personality, ability or social status, but it does mean they are
accepted automatically as being part of the nation. An English duke
may have little if any social contact with the English working man,
but each would instinctively recognise the other as English because
despite their social distance they fall within the recognised template
of what it is to be English.

Just as a nation cannot be consciously created the individual cannot
decide in anything other than the legal sense that they are this or
that nationality. A man may decide to become a British citizen
through an act of will but he cannot decide to be English. That is
because being English is the consequence of parentage and
upbringing, something over which the child has no control. It is the
unconscious imbibing of a culture something visceral.

Most vitally, a person has to be accepted without thinking by other
members of the nation as a member of the nation to be of that nation.
That is why the claims of English men and women to be Irish, Welsh or
Scots are both forlorn and ridiculous. As the English film director
Stephen Frears wittily remarked of the very English actor Daniel
Day-Lewis “I knew Daniel before he was Irish”.

Like it or not, the upbringing of these wannabe Celts has made them
English. Not only do they think like the English, understand English
mores without thinking and are armed with a library of English cultural
references , they have a personality which falls within the English
spectrum. Put them in a room with foreigners or the Celts they wish to
be and they will be taken for English. Such people cannot be anything
but English , because only by being raised in a society where you are
accepted without question as being part of the nation can the person
become part of a nation. An Englishman who wishes to claim that he is a
Scot cannot do so because he lacks the cultural imprinting of a Scot.
It is not something which can be faked.

5. The importance of a national territory

A national territory is essential to the well-being of the nation. .
The fate of the Jews after they lost theirs is a cautionary tale for
anyone who believes otherwise. The ideal is a territory which is
controlled entirely by the nation , a population which is
overwhelmingly comprised of people who are true members of the national
“tribe” through their parentage and upbringing. The prime example
of such a state is the pre-union England, which was the first true
nation state.

The next best choice is for a nation state containing different
peoples who each have de facto their own national territory. Britain is
a first rate example of such a state, with the four home nations having
their own national territory. Being formally master in your own house is
best, but simply having a territory in which you form the majority on
the ground is a great consolation and benefit . That applies even to
a people such as the Kurds who are divided between Turkey, Iraq and
Iran. Being the dominant population they have both the reassurance of
their physical control of the territory – boots on the ground – and the
consoling possibility of converting that demographic dominance into
political control in the future.

6. The democratic value of nations

Politically, nations are immensely valuable because the nation state is
the largest political unit which allows any meaningful democratic
control. Indeed, it is arguable that representative government at the
national level is the only real opportunity for serious democratic
control because representative bodies below the national level are
always subject to the national government or a supra-national
authority, while a supra-national authority signals the end of
democratic control. More of that later.

Only in a country where there is a sense of shared history, culture
and communal interest can representative government function, even in
principle, as a conduit for the interests of the entire population.
In a country which is riven by ethnic and racial difference
representative democracy invariably deteriorates into a mass of
competing groups all struggling for their own advantage. Policy
making and its execution becomes fragmentary and it is impossible to
construct a coherent approach to promoting the common good. In a nation
state with a large degree of homogeneity the political process is
concentrated instead upon policies which affect all, , or at least the
overwhelming majority, of the people. For example, before post-war
mass immigration fractured Britain , the great political questions were
ones related to class. Policies were put forward which either were
intended to better the situation of the working class or to resist
change. Either way, the policy was designed to service the entire
population not merely a part of it.

Once a country’s sovereignty is breached through treaties which
commit countries to bow to the will of supra-national bodies , as has
happened with the constituent countries of the EU, democratic control
withers on the vine because mainstream politicians of all stamps begin
to formulate their policies within the context of what the
supra-national body allows not in the interests of the country..
Eventually, a situation is reached, as has been reached in the case of
the EU, whereby all parties with an opportunity for power sing from the
same policy hymn sheet. At that point representative government
becomes a shell and democratic control is gone because there is no
opportunity to vote for any party which will change matters. That is so
because the grip of the existing elite is so tight on all the levers of
power, most importantly the mass media, that no new party can even get
a serious hearing.

Where the form of government is parliamentary, the difficulty is
enhanced by the fact that very large numbers of candidates must stand
to both be taken seriously and have any chance of forming a majority.
This imposes an immense organisational and economic burden on the new
party, not least because the party will lack experienced politicians
as candidates and party bureaucrats. Add in things such as
first-past-the-post voting in individual constituencies and the deposit
of £500 for each candidate which is at risk of being lost in the vote
does not reach 8% of the total, and the British system is just about the
best armoured against new parties gaining a foothold in government as
any in the world.

Democratic control is vitally important to maintaining the integrity of
the nation. There is only one general political question of importance
in any society, namely, how far can the masses control the abusive
tendencies of the elite? Elites as a class are naturally abusive
because it is in the nature of human beings to be selfish and to look
for their own advantage and that of those closest to them. That does not
mean that no member of an elite will break ranks and go against their
class interest. What it does mean is that an elite as a whole will not
change its spots , not least because the sociological shackles are too
strong for most of those members of the elite who might be tempted to
go against their class interest will be dissuaded from doing so
because of the group pressures within the elite, for the elite will
develop a “tribal” sense of their own, with those outside the elite
seen as a separate social entity.

The less democratic control there is over the elite , the more the
elite will engage in behaviours which are detrimental to the coherence
of the “tribe” as a whole because the elite will seek their own
advantage rather than that of the nation. . Before the rise of the
nation state, the abuse was generally much in evidence because elites
commonly took the form of monarchs and subordinate rulers in the forms
of territorially based aristocracies presiding over territories which
contained various national/ethnic groups, the members of which were seen
as subjects not part of a national whole. The common and deliberate
policy of such elites was to “divide and rule”. Territories were
also frequently subject to changes of ruler through conquest, a change
of royal favour (in the case of subordinate rulers), inheritance or
marriage contracts. In such circumstances there was little opportunity
for the masses to exercise any form of control over their rulers
because there was no unity of feeling or sense of commonality
amongst the peoples they ruled and the sense of “tribe” was
localised. . It is noteworthy that arguably the most dramatic popular
rising in Europe during the mediaeval period took place in England (the
Peasants’ Revolt of 1381), the one large kingdom in Europe at that
time with a broadly homogenous population and a territory which enjoyed
meaningful central Royal control.

With the creation of the nation state there arose the possibility of
democratic control, note, I say possibility not certainty. The
creation of a sense of nation within a single territory responsible to
a single ruler in itself provides the circumstances whereby dissent can
be focused and power and influence removed from the monarch and
diffused to an ever larger part of the population. That is precisely
what happened in England , with first the gradual accretion of powers
by Parliament , especially over taxation, then with the development of
Parliamentary government after 1689 and finally with the extension of
the franchise from 1832 onwards. By the beginning of the 20th century a
large degree of democratic control had been established because the
elite were working within the nation state , were dependent on a mass
electorate and were having to produce policies within a national
context. That control lasted until the early 1970s when the elite found
another way of breaking it by moving politics from the national state
to a supra-national power, the EU. Once that was done, the abusive
tendencies of the elite could re-assert themselves, as they have done in

7.. What the individual owes to the nation

Membership of a nation places a natural duty on the individual to
support the nation. Patriotism should be viewed as a matter of utility,
an absolutely necessity for the maintenance and coherence of a
society. The idea that a society can survive which is merely a
collection of deracinated individuals has no basis in history or
observed human behaviour today.

It is a very great privilege to be part of a nation, for it is the
place where you automatically belong. Just as a family is the place
where most people can find automatic support so is the nation. In
fact, the nation is even more reliable than a family because no one
can remove the nationality which has been imprinted into a person while
a family can reject a member. In an advanced country such as Britain
membership of the nation state is valuable indeed, for materially at
least it is still (just) a fully fledged life support system. .

That which is valuable needs to be defended, because what is valuable
is always envied by others and will be stolen if possible and
destroyed if not. The state recognises this by expecting its nationals
to fight to protect the national territory against an overt invader.
The principle can be extended to other things such as opposing mass
immigration (a surreptitious form of conquest) and defending the
nation’s vital industries.

Being patriotic by my definition does not mean constantly and
stridently asserting a nation’s achievements and superiority to
other nations. It merely, means looking after the national interest in
the same way that an individual looks to their own interest.

8. The liberal internationalist

Liberal internationalist ideology is diametrically opposed to what
Nature has decreed. As mentioned at the beginning of this essay it
states that homo sapiens is a single species whose atoms, the
individual human being, are interchangeable. For the liberal
internationalist discrimination is the dirtiest of words and a word
which he interprets to the point of reductio ad absurdum.

That is the theory. In practice, the liberal internationalist complains
if discrimination only when it effects those whom it includes within
the protective embrace of political correctness. Those outside that
embrace may be abused and vilified as strenuously as . Most perversely
this attitude frequently results in members of a majority actively
discriminating against their own people. Nowhere is this behaviour
seen more sharply than in the attitude of the British elite towards the
English to whom they deny any political voice – a privilege granted to
the other parts of the UK – and actively abuse them by representing
English national feeling as a dangerous thing.

The liberal left internationalists may have made truly immense
efforts to portray nations as outmoded relics at best and barbarous
survivals from a less enlightened past at worst, but despite their best
(or worst) efforts they have not changed the natural feelings of
people because these feelings derive from the general biological
imperative common to all social animals: the need to develop
behaviours which enhance the utility of the group.

But if our elite have not destroyed the naturally patriotic feelings
the people they rule, they have tainted them by suppressing their
public expression through the use of the criminal law (incitement to
racial hatred etc) and civil law (unfair dismissal through racial
discrimination etc) and by the ruthless enforcement of their
liberal-left ideology throughout politics, public service, academia,
the schools, major private corporations and the mainstream media. So
successful have they been that rarely does any native dissent about
immigration and its consequences enter the public realm , while it is
now impossible for anyone in a senior position in any public
organisation or private organisations with a quasi-public quality, for
examples, charities and plcs, without religiously observing the
complete elite ideology which has solidified into what is now called
political correctness. The consequence is that people have developed
the mentality common in totalitarian regimes that certain feelings,
however natural, are dangerous and should be the subject of self
censorship. People still have the feelings but they are withdrawn from
public conversation and increasing private discourse.

It is important to understand that even the most vociferous liberal
does not believe in his or her heart of hearts that humanity is a
single indivisible entity whose atoms (the individual) are in practice
interchangeable. They wish it was so but know it is not so. However,
the ideologically committed continue to live in hope that minds and
behaviours can be changed by what they are wont to call
“education”, for which read indoctrination. The rest go along with
the idea because it has been built into the structure of the elite and
the doubters prize ambition and their membership of the elite above

Incredible as it may seem to those who witness their public posturing,
liberal internationalists experience the same fears as everyone else,
an unsurprising fact because they have the same biological template.
This is what drives them to live in a manner which is directly at odds
with their professed ideology. Look at the life of a white liberal and
you will find that they arrange their lives so that they live in very
white, and in England, very English worlds. They do this in two ways.
They either live in an area which is overwhelmingly white – the
“rightest of right-on” folk singers Billy Bragg chooses to live in
the “hideously white” county of Dorset – or a gentrified white
enclave is created on the outskirts of an area such as Islington which
has a significant ethnic content to its population. The latter tactic
allows the white liberal to luxuriate in the faux belief that they are
“living the diversity dream” whilst in reality encountering little
if any of the “joy of diversity” they are so vocally enthusiastic

These people socialise in worlds which are almost entirely white. ( The
drippingly pc BBC presenter Adrian Chilles described in 2003 how he
realised this when he looked at his wedding photographs which were taken
only a few years before. With a guest list of several hundred he was
unable to find a single non-white face staring out at him. )The only
ethnics they have equal or extended contact with are those they meet
in their work, ethnics who are middleclass and westernised. They will
also be few in number , for even the workplace of the white liberal will
be very white in most instances.

9. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotism

It is of course impossible to consciously force someone to be patriotic
but there is no need to because the natural instincts of human beings
is to be patriotic. All that needs to be done is to remove the
constraints placed on national expression by the liberal
internationalists and the natural instincts will re-assert themselves
. That can be done by the political elite changing their tune towards
a defence of the nation and the nation state. Let the political;
rhetoric alter and the public mood will soon swing towards the

All treaties which restrict the power of a government to act in the
national context must be thrown away. In the case of Britain that means
leaving the EU and repudiating treaties such as the UN Convention on
Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The institutionalisation of political correctness within public
service must be destroyed., both by dismissing all those employed
explicitly to enforce such views (who are de facto political
commissars) and by repealing all the Acts which both provide powers
for officials and those which restrict free expression. I say
political correctness in its entirety because the various strands of
political correctness support each other, most notably in the general
attack on “discrimination”. Leave anything of the
“discrimination” culture intact and it will be used to bring in
multiculturalism by the back door. It would also require many of the de
facto political commissars to be left in office.

Public office, both that held by politicians and officials, should be
restricted to those with four grandparents and two parents as
nationals born and bred. This should be done to prevent any lack of
focus because of the danger of divided national loyalties.

Mass immigration must be ended. Immigrants in a country illegally
should be removed in short order where that can be done. Where
possible, those legally in a country who cannot or will not
assimilate fully , should be re-settled in their countries of their
national origin or the national origin of their ancestors or in other
countries where they will be in the racial/ethnic majority. Those who
are in a country legally but who are not required because they do not
have scarce skills which cannot be supplied by the native population,
should be sent back to their countries of origin – there would be few
from countries who could not be returned because they would be
definitely identifiable as coming from a country and few countries will
refuse to receive one of their nationals even if they do not have a

A written constitution is a must because otherwise any change to
remedy matters will be vulnerable to reversal. Such a reversal could be
thwarted, as far as these things can ever be thwarted, by placing a
bar on what a government may do. That should include prohibitions on
the signing of treaties which restrict national sovereignty and mass
immigration , provisions for the protection of strategic industries
and the restriction of public office to born and bred nationals and a
clear statement that the nation state exists to privilege its members
over those of foreigners,. Most importantly, there should be an
absolute right to free expression for that is the greatest dissolver of
elite abuse and general chicanery.

Note: Published in Right Now! Magazine. RH

Exit mobile version