nursing continuing education
Nursing Continuing Education EDU Tip Although a good education in many of the professional fields can provide a solid understanding of the industry no matter if it be financial, medical, industrial, or scientific. Ongoing competence in any of these fields however requires an ongoing process of continuing education. Jack and Jill went up the hill to [...]
Source: continuingeducationo.com
The Terror Legacy of the Left
By Gary DeMar
In the July 11, 1968, issue of The Village Voice, Marvin Garson, the pamphleteer of the Free Speech Movement, recounted with pride the bombings which had been the calling card of campus radicals from Berkeley and its environs:
The series of successful and highly popular bombings which have occurred here recently: the steady bombing of the electric power system from mid-March when the lines leading to the Lawrence Radiation Lab were knocked down, to June 4, when on the morning of the California primary 300, 000 homes in Oakland were cut off; the dynamiting of a bulldozer engaged in urban renewal destruction of Berkeley’s funkiest block; three separate bombings of the Berkeley draft board; and finally, last Tuesday night, the dynamiting of the checkpoint kiosk at the western entrance to the University campus, a symbol of the Board of Regent’s property rights in the community of scholars.[1]�
Civil unrest and purposeful destruction of the nation’s infrastructure and authority institutions was the order of the day in the late 1960s. “On�September 3, 1968, The New York Times reported that the city of Berkeley was declared to be in a state of civil disaster; the city authorities invoked emergency police powers, and the campus of the university was placed under curfew rules.[2]
The left-wing Weathermen were even more radical. They too were into bombs. Fortunately, they were also inept. “On March 6, 1970, a tremendous explosion demolished a fashionable Greenwich Village townhouse, and from the flaming wreckage fled two SDS ‘Weatherwomen, ’ members of the SDS terrorist faction. In the rubble police found remains of a ‘bomb factory’ and three bodies, including one of the organizers of the 1968 Columbia University rioting and another of a ‘regional traveler’ who had helped spark the Kent State buildup. Four days later in Maryland two close associates of Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) firebrand ‘Rap’ Brown blew themselves to smithereens while apparently transporting a bomb to the courthouse where their cohort was to stand trial on an inciting riot charge. . . . Also, in 1970 a Black Panther carrying a bomb along a Minneapolis street blasted himself to bits. Despite the carnage to themselves, Panther and Weatherman terrorists succeeded in setting off bombs in the New York City police headquarters, the U.S. Capitol, and scores of other public and corporate buildings across the nation.”[3] In addition, they had succeeded in setting off bombs in the Pentagon and several major courthouses. “These�were the bombings they took credit for publicly. The full extent of their terrorist activities remains unknown.”[4]
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a resurgence of left-wing radicalism that led to violence with hope to build a better world. On May 7, 1967, just weeks before the riot in Newark, New Jersey, Greg Calvert of SDS described its members as “post-communist revolutionaries” who “are working to build a guerrilla force in an urban environment. We are actively organizing sedition.”[5] The SDS was a growing radical movement made up of college students. The rhetoric of the SDS was at its core�anti-government. “SDS organizers denounced ‘oppressors, ’ ‘exploiters, ’ and ‘the Al Capones who run this country.’ The university was depicted as a ‘colony’ of ‘the military-industrial complex’ and a ‘midwife to murder.’ ‘Imperialism’ was offered as a convenient scapegoat for every frustration and failure.”[6] A keynote speech at a 1962 SDS convention praised the freedom riders, not for furthering civil rights but rather for their “radicalizing” potential, their “clear-cut demonstration for the sterility of legalism.” The speaker continued:
It is not by . . . “learning the rules of the legislative game” that we will succeed in creating the kind of militant alliances that our struggle requires. We shall succeed through force—through the exertion of such pressure as will force our reluctant allies to accommodate to us, in their own interest.[7]
Tom Hayden, a former SDS organizer and strategist, member of the California General Assembly, and one-time husband of Jane Fonda, intoned the following in 1967: “Perhaps the only forms of action appropriate to the angry people are violent. Perhaps a small minority, by setting ablaze New York and Washington, could damage this country forever in the court of world opinion. Urban guerrillas are the only realistic alternative at this time to electoral politics or mass armed resistance.”[8] As we’ll see, Hayden’s tactics are almost identical to Islamists who believe that it is necessary to strike at the heart of America for worldwide effect.
Hayden’s anti-government, revolutionary rhetoric bordered on the fringes of sedition and treason. His speech inflamed so many radical extremists that some blame him for agitating fragile race relations in Newark, causing nearly a week of rioting in the summer of 1967. While Hayden was not directly involved, he seemed to approve of using violence as a way of “shattering the status quo.” The August 24, 1967, issue of The New York Review of Books includes an article in which Hayden wrote:
The role of organized violence is now being carefully considered. During a riot, for instance, a conscious guerrilla can participate in pulling police away from the path of people engaged in attacking stores. He can create disorder in new areas the police think are secure. He can carry the torch, if not all the people, to white neighborhoods and downtown business districts. If necessary, he can successfully shoot to kill.
The guerrilla can employ violence effectively during times of apparent “peace, ” too. He can attack, in the suburbs or slums, with paint or bullets, symbols of racial�oppression.
These tactics of disorder will be defined by the authorities as criminal anarchy. But it may be that disruption will create possibilities of meaningful change. . . . Violence can contribute to shattering the status quo, but only politics and organization can transform it.[9]
Nearly two thousand people were arrested during the Newark strife. Snipers killed a policeman, and police responded with wild gunfire, killing a 74-year-old bystander and wounding others. When the anarchy subsided, twenty-four people had been killed. The chaos did not stop with sniper fire and looting. The Newark Fire Department recorded 122 fires in the first twenty-four hours of the riots. A total of 250 fires were set, thirteen of which were considered serious.
Who can forget the “Burn, Baby, Burn” slogan of Watts and Detroit? In 1967 Detroit became a war zone. In five days firebugs ignited an estimated 225 buildings. Wind-whipped flames burned twice that many more. The rhetorical goal of these revolutionaries was supposedly a reaction to past injustices and a desire to build a better society on the remaining ashes. But actions speak louder than words. “The cities burned, while the kids kicked in the windows, cut hoses, and danced in the streets. The nation watched them on the evening news, black faces shining in the glare of fires, grinning as they passed TV’s and cases of liquor out through the broken windows--scattering down dark streets--falling occasionally to a guardsman’s shot. And their elders, whites, and many blacks as well, shuddered at the nihilistic new litany that welled up now in place of ‘We Shall Overcome’: Burn, Baby, Burn!”[10] Terror for the sake of terror was the goal. While there are always visions of a better society among the destructive revolutionaries, history is a sure witness that vision is all they have.
Some campus radicals in the 1960s pursued the conviction “that violence may be necessary” to bring about any meaningful cultural change in America. A student from the University of California at Berkeley stated that she understood why certain groups riot. “I feel the same frustrations in myself, the same urge to violence.”[11] Such sympathies are prevalent among today’s liberals when their opinions are surveyed regarding Palestinian suicide terrorists. Self-sacrifice for an ultimate cause, although not in such extreme measures, was born and bred in the USA. The campus at Berkeley led the way. In 1967 the national secretary of SDS declared himself to be a disciple of Che Guevera: “Che’s message is applicable to urban America as far as the psychology of guerrilla action goes. . . . Che sure lives in our hearts.” “Black power, ” he added, “is absolutely necessary.” White student activists noted that “black nationalists are stacking Molotov cocktails and�studying how they can hold a few city blocks in an uprising, how to keep off the fire brigade and the police so that the National Guard must be called out. . . .”[12] Domestic terrorism is writ large in our history, but few people remember it.
On the cover of Revolution for the Hell of It, Abbie Hoffman, [13] the Yippie spokesman of the 1960s, is pictured with a rifle in his hand leaping for joy. Since Hoffman was something of a jokester, some might claim that an armed and jubilant Hoffman gracing the cover of a book was nothing more than a satirical barb at the establishment. The content of the book tells a different story. Hoffman envisioned and encouraged today’s sexual revolution and the general disembowelment of morality. Hoffman went further by supplying information that he hoped would lead to the violent overthrow of “the system”:
To enter the twenty-first century, to have revolution in our lifetime, male supremacy must be smashed, . . . A militant Gay Liberation Front has taught us that our stereotypes of masculinity were molded by the same enemies of life that drove us out of Lincoln Park. The words “chick” and “fag” and the deep-rooted attitudes they imply must be purged from the New Nation. Cultural Revolution means a disavowal of the values; all values held by our parents who inhabit and sustain the decaying institutions of a dying Pig Empire.[14]
Hoffman’s rhetoric about revolution was just a warm-up. In Steal This Book he gave instructions on how to build stink bombs, smoke bombs, sterno bombs, aerosol bombs, pipe bombs, and Molotov Cocktails. Hoffman’s updated version of the Molotov Cocktail consisted of a glass bottle filled with a mixture of gasoline and Styrofoam, turning the slushy blend into a poor man’s version of napalm. The flaming gasoline-soaked Styrofoam was designed to stick to policemen when it exploded.[15] Helpful drawings on how to make the incendiary devices are included.
Let’s Blow Up Something!
In Woodstock Nation, Hoffman updates his revolutionary tactics. This time, Random House is the publisher. Next to Random House’s name on the title page, there is an illustration of a man blowing up a house with dynamite. This same illustration appears in Hoffman’s Steal This Book. The theme of both books is how to blow up the system, literally. Hoffman informs us that “the best material available on military tactics in revolutionary warfare” is available through “the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.”
Another publication that’s probably the most valuable work of its kind available is called Physical Security and has more relevant information than Che Guevara’s Guerilla Warfare. The chapter on Sabotage is extremely precise and accurate with detailed instructions on the making of all sorts of homemade bombs and triggering mechanisms. That information, combined with Army Installations in the Continental United States and a lot of guts, can really get something going?[16]
Of course, Hoffman never advocates blowing up anything or anyone. “I ain’t saying you should use any of this information, in fact for the records of the FBI, I say right now ‘Don’t blow up your local draft board or other such holy places.’ You wouldn’t want to get the Government Printing Office indicted for conspiracy, would you now?”[17] He’s just making the information available. You know, freedom of expression and all of that. Then he reproduces pages from the Department of the Army Field Manual dealing with “Disguised Incendiary Devices, ” “Mechanical Delay Devices, ” and pipe bombs.[18]
Liberals have short and selective memories. “Righteous violence” was rationalized by the front-line New Left leadership in the 1960s in the same way that it is rationalized by those who want us to “understand the plight of Islamic extremists.”
Endnotes[1]�Quoted in Lewis S. Feuer, The Conflict of Generations: The Character and Significance of Student Movements (New York: Basic Books, 1969), 479.
[2]�Feuer, Conflict of Generations, 479.
[3]�Eugene H. Methvin, The Rise of Radicalism: The Social Psychology of Messianic Extremism (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1973), 513.
[4]�Rothman and Lichter, Roots of Radicalism, 42.
[5]�New York Times (May 7, 1967). Quoted in Methvin, The Rise of Radicalism, 497. Also see The Riot�Makers: The Technology of Social Demolition (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1970), 27.
[6]�Methvin, Rise of Radicalism, 504.
[7]�Thomas Kahn, “The Political Significance of the Freedom Riders, ” in Mitchell Cohen and Dennis Hale, eds., The New Student Left (Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1966), 59, 63. Quoted in Rothman and Lichter, Roots of Radicalism, 13.
[8]�Quoted in Methvin, Rise of Radicalism, 505.
[9]�Quoted in Riot Makers, 51.
[10]�Anthony Esler, Bombs, Beards, and Barricades: 150 years of Youth in Revolt (New York: Stein and Day, 1971), 271.
[11]�Feuer, Conflict of Generations, 478.
[12]�Feuer, Conflict of Generations, 478.
[13]�Hoffman was found dead in his apartment in April 1989. (“A Flower in a Clenched Fist, ” Time [April 24, 1989], 23).
[14]�Free (Abbie Hoffman), Revolution for the Hell of It (New York: Pocket Books, [1968] 1970), 3.
[15]�Abbie Hoffman, Steal This Book (New York: Pirate Editions, 1971), 170–79.
[16]�Abbie Hoffman, Woodstock Nation: A Talk-Rock Album (New York: Random House, 1969), 114.
[17]�Hoffman, Woodstock Nation, 114.
[18]�Hoffman, Woodstock Nation, 115–116.
Source: www.feedcat.net
"Watch the Skies!"
By Gary DeMar
“Pop-culture fiction, not academic nonfiction, is now the cutting edge of public discourse on spirituality.”[1]
For several months I have been working on an extended project that explores the relationship of pop-culture to societal norms and worldview shifts. In addition to comic books, film, and music, I’ve been looking at science fiction and the search for extraterrestrial life. Science and science-fiction have converged on the subject for quite some time. “Nicholas of Cusa (Kues, German, 1401–1464) was a theologian who in De docta ignorantia endorsed the idea of other inhabited worlds in the mid-fifteenth century. Remarkably, Nicholas even affirmed that the inhabitants of the planets were superior to Earth’s human residents.”[2] It’s surprising how much interest and writing there has been on the subject for more than 500 years! It was surprising.
Extraterrestrial superiority is the norm for modern-day space-travel theorists. Evolution is the driving force behind most of it. It’s the belief of these writers and theorists that space exploration is the hope of mankind. In Star Maker (1937), Olaf Stapledon (1886–1950) “placed humanity on a cosmic evolutionary journey that ends in near divinity. . . . [He] believed we needed a new mythology for the dawning of the technological age.” The claim is made that the inherent principles of evolution will make space a utopia because science and scientists will lead the way.
C.S. Lewis was one of the first modern writers to spot the obvious flaw in space-utopia thinking. In a letter to Arthur C. Clarke dated December 7, 1943, Lewis wrote: “Technology is per se neutral: a race devoted to the increase of its own power by technology with complete indifference to ethics does seem to me a cancer in the universe. Certainly, if he goes on his present course much further man can not be trusted with knowledge.”[3] They continued this debate until 1954. Lewis died on November 22, 1963, and Clarke went on to fame with a much expanded film version of his short story The Sentinel (1948) that became 2001: A Space Odyssey. The Sentinel is about a warning beacon left on the Moon by an ancient alien civilization to signal when earthlings make their way into outer space. Even Clarke understood that man’s moral nature is problematic, not because of sin but due to his unevenly evolved condition. There are two things to keep in mind when reading the star-travelling utopians. First, alien civilizations are portrayed as more intelligent (more highly evolved), and, second, earthlings are a threat to the cosmos because they are yet “savages” when compared to the evolutionary development of other alien races. Here’s how Clarke states it in The Sentinel:
Perhaps you understand now why that crystal pyramid was set upon the Moon instead of on the Earth. Its builders were not concerned with races still struggling up from savagery. They would be interested in our civilization only if we proved our fitness to survive—by crossing space and so escaping from the Earth, our cradle. That is the challenge that all intelligent races must meet, sooner or later.
Much of twentieth-century science fiction that makes it to the silver screen has portrayed aliens as sinister. War of the Worlds, published in 1898 by H. G. Wells and later made into a film in 1953 and again in 2005, is a good example. The same is true of The Thing from Another World (1951, 1982), Invaders from Mars (1953), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, 1978) and many more too numerous to list here. At the end of the 1951 version of The Thing, a newspaper reporter sends out a warning over the radio: “Watch the skies, everywhere! Keep looking. Keep watching the skies!” The message was clear: aliens are bad. They are not our moral equals.
Given the evolutionary overtones of so many scientists and science fiction writers, how is it possible to make any moral assessments? Who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys? How do we know what’s good or bad? Evolution on earth is a history of “Nature, red in tooth and claw.” Why is it now wrong to be equally misanthropic in the pursuit of greater evolutionary development? Philosopher Richard Rorty (1931–2007) provided a thought-provoking moral experiment for naturalistic philosophy to grapple with. Rorty challenges atheists to offer a compelling satisfactory naturalistic answer to the following:
Aliens from another planet, with vastly superior intelligence to humans, land on earth in order to consume humans as food. What argument could you make to convince the aliens not to eat us that would not also apply to our consumption of beef?[4]
Rorty’s morality question was done with flair in the 1962 episode of The Twilight Zone “To Serve Man.”A race of seemingly benevolent aliens known as Kanamits[5] is led by “a Christopher Columbus from another galaxy and another time.” This superior alien race lands on Earth and brings with them advanced technology with the promise of a utopian world. Initially wary of the intentions of such a highly advanced race, even the most skeptical humans are convinced when their code-breakers begin to translate one of the Kanamit’s books with the seemingly benevolent title, To Serve Man. Sharing their advanced technology, the aliens quickly solve all of Earth’s greatest woes, eradicating hunger, disease, and the need for warfare. Convinced that the Kanamit’s are alien benefactors, earthlings are clamoring to visit the Kanamits’ home planet where it is believed a paradise awaits them.
All is not well, however, when a code-breaker discovers the Kanamits’ true intentions: Their book, To Serve Man, is a cookbook, and all their gifts were designed to make humanity complacent, to fatten them up for the slaughtered. Here’s how host Serling concluded the show:
The recollections of one Michael Chambers, with appropriate flashbacks and soliloquy. Or more simply stated, the evolution of man, the cycle of going from dust to dessert, the metamorphosis from being the ruler of a planet to an ingredient in someone’s soup. It’s tonight’s bill of fare from The Twilight Zone.
So, given evolutionary assumptions, was it morally wrong to turn humans into “an ingredient in someone’s soup”? Evolutionists would surely protest the “dust to dessert” analogy, but there is no basis for any moral aversion. The 1983–1984 television mini-series V offered a similar plot line when alien “benefactors” wanted to suck earth dry and use humans as cattle. Many science fiction films still portray aliens as malevolent (e.g., the Alien franchise), but a trend toward aliens as saviors dominates and began with The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). Earthlings are stupid and evil, and only a higher evolved alien race can save humanity. Here are Klaatu’s parting words:
This universe grows smaller every day, and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all, or no one is secure. This does not mean giving up any freedom except the freedom to act irresponsibly. Your ancestors knew this when they made laws to govern themselves, and hired policemen to enforce them. We of the other planets have along accepted this principle. . . . It is of no concern of ours how you run your planet, but if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder. Your choice is simple. Join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration.
Implied in this warning is that man has not evolved enough to understand his place in the cosmos. Aliens, because of their evolutionary development, are our saviors.
E.T.: The Extraterrestrial was the new model. Spielberg summed it up when he said in a 1978 Rolling Stone interview, “The movie will only be successful if, when [people] see it, they come out of the theater looking up at the sky.”[6] It’s no longer “Watch the skies” for danger, watch the sky for salvation. (To be continued. . . .)
Endnotes1�James Herrick, “Sci-Fi’s Brave New World, ” Christianity Today (February 2009), 25
2�James A. Herrick, Scientific Mythologies: How Science and Science Fiction Forge New Religious Beliefs (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 45.
3�Walter Hooper, ed, The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis: Books, Broadcasts and the War, 1931–1949 (New York: Harper Collins, 2004), 594.
4�Quoted by Richard Mankiw at http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/06/richard-rorty.htm
5�Richard Kiel plays the head Kanamit. Kiel played the “Jaws” character in The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) and Moonraker (1979). He reprised his “Jaws” character in the film Inspector Gadget (1999). In 2002, Kiel wrote his autobiography, Making it BIG in the Movies. He is often confused with Ted Cassidy (1932–1979), “Lurch” in The Addams Family, where he gets the short end of the stick in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) when he declares that there are no rules in a knife fight.
6�Quoted in Chris Hodenfield, “The Sky Is Full of Questions: Science Fiction in Steven Spielberg’s Suburbia, ” Rolling Stone (January 26, 1978), 33–38.
Source: www.feedcat.net
The Power and Authority of Words
By Eric Rauch
In the New Testament, the Greek word for "authority" is sometimes translated as "power." Even though there is a separate Greek word for power, the concepts of power and authority are so intimately connected in the Western mind, that modern translators often view them as synonyms. But translations aside, there is a biblical distinction that should be made between authority and power.
We discussed previously the relationship between author and authority, where an author has "authority" because he is the originator, the creator. Authority, in the biblical sense, is usually referring to the legitimacy of the individual or individuals. For example, when Jesus finished his Sermon on the Mount, Matthew records that "the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes" (Matthew 7:28-29). In other words, the crowds recognized something different in the words of Jesus that was lacking in the words of their own teachers. The scribes had the "power" of the Scriptures, but lacked the ability—the legitimacy—to speak them with any authority. When Jesus, the author and finisher of faith (Hebrews 12:2) spoke however, he spoke with authority because he was the author; he had legitimate claim to the power AND authority of the Scriptures.
You've heard it said that "knowledge is power." And while this is true, we must not forget that knowledge exists only in words. In reality, words are the real power of the created world. Meaning is infused into words by an authority. French artist Marcel Duchamp despised language because he understood that it pointed to a transcendent Message-sender. Duchamp set out to create his own language, free of any meaning and authority. When he realized that by creating his own language, Duchamp had merely replaced God with himself, he destroyed his work. Language—any language—is authoritarian by its very nature. The creator of the language must give meaning to his "words" in order to communicate. Without meaning, communicating is impossible. Duchamp learned the lesson of the Tower of Babel too late. Words have power because they come from an authority.
This is why one of the first actions of any regime seeking to subvert the current authority will always involve language. Redefining words, creating new ones, controlling the media, and restricting access to alternate viewpoints must take place before any coup can be successful. In "The Principles of Newspeak, " an appendix to George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, we are told:
Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism...The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought—that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc—should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression� to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever. [1]
Orwell understood the power of words. Control the language; control the people. Notice that Orwell understood that even Newspeak was limited in that it was only effective "at least so far as thought is dependent on words." Even though this is theoretically true, how many of us actually think in anything other than words. We primarily think and reason conceptually, not pictorially.
Words are important to God as well. He gave us his word—the Bible—and he gave the Word—Jesus Christ. He made words the focus of two of his ten commandments: the third and the ninth. In the third commandment, we are told to not take his name in vain, referring primarily to vows and oaths. In the ninth, we are told to not bear false witness against our neighbor, a reference to being truthful and providing trustworthy testimony. God expects his people to be truthful, to be without reproach in what we say and do. This idea is repeated over and over throughout the entire Bible and when we get to the New Testament we find an interesting application of this concept.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes an observation regarding the third commandment. In Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus says: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes, ’ and your ‘No, ’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." Paul and James both repeat similar admonitions in their letters (2 Corinthians 1:17-20; James 5:12). Commentaries on these passages refer to the historical tradition of the first century Jews to make any and all sorts of vows and oaths against sacred objects, in order to give their promises validity (i.e. authority). Stated another way, they had gotten to the point where their words were no longer trustworthy; their words no longer carried any power because their authority of being truthful people—ones that obeyed God's third and ninth commandments—had been corrupted. There is no honor among thieves or liars...
We will continue this study on Wednesday, May 27.
Endnote[1]� George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Signet Classics, 1983 [1949]), 246
Source: www.feedcat.net
hungdoc11: eladó házak: Pécs-málom, 122 m2, 3 szoba, ID:512
Source:
hungdoc11: Pécs-uránváros(13)
Source:
hungdoc11: kiadó irodák: Pécs-belváros, 88 m2, 3 szoba, ID:516
Source:
Post a Comment