Translate

sábado, 4 de septiembre de 2021

Cuando la ideología de género consigue poder, lucha hasta convertirse en ideología de Estado

¿Qué es la perspectiva de género? Diez preguntas y respuestas

por Josep Miró i Ardèvol

Cuando la ideología de género consigue poder, suprime el debate e impone la censura y medidas discriminatorias y sancionadoras contra los disidentes, hasta convertirse, como en España, en ideología de Estado


La perspectiva de género vive su hegemonía por el poder que la acompaña, la mayor parte de la izquierda y el liberalismo, que tiene en ella un relato que enmascara las graves contradicciones e injusticias económicas. Pero también vive a expensas de la confusión que reina sobre lo que promueve realmente.

De ahí que deba ser conocida mejor, debatidos sus fundamentos, y contrastadas con la realidad sus conclusiones. Este es un mandato imperativo en una sociedad democrática. Y eso es lo contrario de lo que precisamente el gender pretende: que no se debata y se acepten ciegamente sus mandatos, fundamentos y criterios.

La perspectiva de género se presenta en términos confusos

La perspectiva de género se propaga mediante una extraordinaria confusión de su significado.

1. No es una simple sustitución gramatical

Algunos lo utilizan como sustituto erróneo del concepto gramatical de sexo, masculino o femenino, pensando que es una equivalencia. Es un error que introduce en el lenguaje una gran carga ideológica, que manipula su sentido.

2. No es solo sinónimo de equidad

Esta extendida su interpretación como expresión de la relación de equidad entre hombres y mujeres, la equidad de género, pero en su planteamiento desvía la atención de la causa fundamental, que no es solo ni principalmente aquella relación, sino que es la cuestión previa y fundamental de cómo se distribuye la productividad de la empresa entre el trabajo y el capital.

Muchas grandes empresas están encantadas en tratar la igualdad de género, pero se niegan en redondo a abordar el reparto de las ganancias de la productividad en términos menos desiguales para los trabajadores. La importancia de este hecho es ahora fundamental porque crece la desigualdad, se reduce la igualdad de oportunidades, la productividad no consigue crecer al ritmo de las décadas anteriores, y el reparto de sus beneficios es mucho más desigual. Una situación potencialmente objetiva que el gender desvía hacia otros debates.

3. La perspectiva de género no es una explicación científica de la realidad

Se trata de una ideología política, como pueda serlo el marxismo, el comunismo o el liberalismo, que, como todas ellas, persigue el poder. Surge de un planteamiento que destruye el concepto de naturaleza humana porque afirma que una realidad objetiva, natural, ecológica, el ser hombre o ser mujer, es consecuencia de la decisión subjetiva. Como dice uno de sus eslóganes, “Tu sexo está en tu cabeza”.

Nuestra concepción científica sobre la naturaleza de la vida está guiada por la evolución, que, a su vez, tiene uno de sus postulados fuertes en la adaptación de la especie para lograr su continuidad a lo largo del tiempo. La perspectiva de género, que propugna la multiplicidad y variación de las identidades sexuales, cuya idea más popular es la “salida del armario”, sostiene al mismo tiempo que la única condición irreversible es la de homosexual. Un heterosexual puede tomar conciencia, o desear la condición homosexual, pero éste tiene vetada la opción inversa e impone medidas legales coercitivas allí donde puede, para que los homosexuales que lo deseen no puedan en ningún caso ser tratados para revertir en heterosexuales.

Desde este punto de vista, la única condición estable de la especie humana, aquella a la que tiende por su irreversibilidad, es la homosexual, precisamente la que por sus especiales relaciones sexuales resulta de natural infecunda, un absurdo desde el punto de vista evolutivo, como es evidente por la composición de la población.

¿Qué es la perspectiva de género? Principios fundamentales

Parte del principio de subjetividad radical, de manera que uno no es hombre o mujer de acuerdo con su naturaleza, sino en función de su deseo que, además, resulta cambiante en función de la ocasión. Puede ser hombre, mujer o ambas cosas, o cualquiera de las identidades de género que en ella se contemplan.

Esta percepción subjetiva reclama unos derechos objetivos específicos que la sociedad debe reconocer mediante leyes y obligaciones, incluidas las de naturaleza económica. En las condiciones que define la perspectiva de género no existe el ser humano tal y como lo entendemos.

Los principios sobre los que se fundamenta son: la diferencia entre género y sexo; la primacía del primero sobre el segundo; la primacía de la cultura sobre la naturaleza, ello implica la variabilidad en el tiempo.

4. Diferencia entre género y sexo. Identidad de género y orientación sexual

El término género atribuye las diferencias entre hombre y mujer a una construcción cultural que da lugar a individuos que pueden cambiar su identidad a voluntad. Las leyes LGTBI definen cinco tipos de identidades: lésbica, gay, transexual, bisexual e intersexual. Otras leyes definen incluso más identidades: androginia, el cross-dressing, el genderqueer, el género fluido, etc.

Esta parodia de un diputado alemán es posible precisamente porque la gran mayoría de referencias que utiliza corresponden a identidades surgidas de la teoría de género.

El sexo es una realidad biológica que comporta diferencias biológicas y psicológicas entre el hombre y la mujer, y queda determinado en la concepción.

5. Identidad y orientación sexual no siempre son coincidentes

Se pueden dar todo tipo de cruces entre identidades y orientación sexual. No son, por tanto, necesariamente coincidentes. Estos cruces pueden variar con el tiempo.

6. Consecuencias de la teoría de género

Solo un 5% de la población puede describirse de acuerdo con esta ideología. A pesar de ello, persigue que la legislación y la gobernanza del conjunto de la sociedad se realicen a partir de sus presupuestos. Ello da lugar a legislaciones de privilegios grupales LGBTI, se alteran las instituciones y se orientan las funciones a fines distintos a los que deben tener; desarrolla la anomía social, de manera que la sociedad es incapaz de generar la respuesta a aquellas necesidades que ella misma exige.

Dos ejemplos bien distintos pueden ilustrarlo: la institución del matrimonio implica un reconocimiento especial, no en función de la naturaleza del amor de los cónyuges sino como ámbito privilegiado para la procreación, cuidado y educación de los hijos. Con su transformación por el matrimonio homosexual, la primacía de la descendencia desaparece o se torna secundaria, y surge como fin principal o exclusivo la relación sexual-afectiva, dando lugar a una institución muy distinta basada en la satisfacción mutua del deseo, y no en la procuración del bien de un tercero como fin principal.

Otro ejemplo que está relacionado con la función lo encontramos en el intento de imponer los lavabos unisex para evitar presuntas discriminaciones de los transexuales. Los servicios separados para hombres y mujeres fueron un avance en los servicios públicos desde el punto de vista de las necesidades y prácticas distintas de hombres y mujeres, de las condiciones higiénicas, de su capacidad funcional, de su intimidad, incluso en determinados contextos, seguridad. Por razones ideológicas ahora este progreso es rechazado.

Otras consecuencias graves son:

a) La fragmentación de la condición humana, situando múltiples e indeterminadas identidades relacionadas solo y exclusivamente con su posición subjetiva en cuanto a las relaciones sexuales. Al final son solo las prácticas o preferencias sexuales las que determinan la identidad humana, negando la importancia de todas sus restantes dimensiones y el desarrollo equilibrado de las mismas como tarea principal de la humanización.

b) Se atenta contra la tradición cultural de Occidente, estableciendo pseudo-derechos que se aplican a las diferentes identidades sexuales.

c) Se favorece la cultura de la desvinculación, en la que el deseo es convertido en derecho y se prohíbe lo que no coincide con lo deseado.

d) El hombre y la mujer dejan de existir como realidades objetivas. La maternidad queda relegada y ya no constituye el centro de la sociedad.

e) Identidades a lo largo del tiempo. Resulta imposible dilucidar con quién uno se está casando.

f) Tiene consecuencias sobre el sistema económico y el Estado de bienestar, y para la organización de la sociedad. En una sociedad de género el estado del bienestar es inviable.

7. Raíces homosexuales de la teoría de género

La teoría de género nace de una visión lésbica de los roles hombre-mujer, que deja de lado o aporta respuestas contradictorias al tratamiento de las situaciones reales de la mujer como son la maternidad, la viudedad y la posición legal ante la prostitución.

8. Una nueva lucha de clases

La estrategia de la perspectiva de género consiste en alinearse como colectivo vulnerable y actuar a modo de lucha de clases en función de las preferencias sexuales, en la que la mujer y las personas LGBTI son el equivalente de la clase obrera explotada por la burguesía propietaria de los medios de producción representada por el hombre.

Esta lógica grosera de la dialéctica de clases marxista es incompatible con la ontología liberal que acompaña al movimiento, porque no contempla la individualidad de las personas, sino sus clases, y las motivaciones de aquellas como tales en términos de poder. Los hombres, todos, discriminan a las mujeres porque las quieren fuera del poder que ellos detentan y esta es la síntesis del feminismo basado en el género, que poco tiene que ver con aquel que defiende la igualdad de derechos entre hombres y mujeres.

9. Apoyo de las élites económicas

En una sociedad globalizada, el conflicto de la perspectiva de género enmascara el conflicto real relacionado con la generación de la desigualdad económica excesiva, que surge de la distinta posición que cada persona detenta en los medios de producción, y la naturaleza de los mismos, y también las distintas lógicas en la distribución de los resultados de la productividad y la desigualdad entre retribución del capital y del trabajo. Todo esto, más el paro crónico y la falta de igualdad de oportunidades que generan, junto con las familias desestructuradas, pobreza y exclusión, beneficia a la situación establecida y por ello a las élites económicas.

10. Dogmatismo radical

No se admite ni la discrepancia ni el diálogo con quien defienda otras posturas, llegando hasta el extremo de coartar la libertad de opinión y expresión. Mediante el desarrollo de legislación represiva impone esta ideología en la educación, y donde puede la consagra como ideología de Estado, como sucede, entre otros pocos países más, en el caso de España.

El resultado de este dogmatismo es que allí donde consigue la hegemonía, implanta leyes discriminatorias.

Publicado en Forum Libertas.

Fuente: ver aquí (Religión en Libertad)

viernes, 3 de septiembre de 2021

Our nation’s senior-officer educational institutions no longer teach warfighting—and that must change.


Putting the “War” Back in War Colleges

by Thomas Bruscino Mitchell G. Klingenberg

  • We must reckon with the hard truth that the United States has lost another war.
  • Though errors made by policymakers certainly played a part, our military lost in Afghanistan because it no longer knows how to fight and win wars. 
  • This wasn’t because our military professionals lack will or effort but because they have forgotten the real purpose for which militaries exist.
  • Nowhere is this truer than in America’s war colleges—the schools our nation established to teach officers how to fight and win wars.
  • The plain fact is that these schools no longer teach warfighting.
  • This may sound incredible—even unbelievable—but it is true.

In May 2020, the Joint Chiefs of Staff published guidance for the education of future senior military leaders that repeatedly emphasized the need for all senior officers to learn how to fight wars and campaigns as a joint force. The various services are specialized to fight and win battles on land, at sea, and in the air, but campaigns and wars require building, supporting, and commanding formations that fight in all three environments simultaneously, often far from the United States. The Joint Chiefs issued their guidance because our senior-officer education system does not prepare its students for joint warfighting, which is enormously complicated.

At the war colleges, this cry for help has gone missing in a maze of bureaucracy and jargon. Educational standards take the form of vague word salads: “Senior leaders who lead complex organizations and think strategically and skillfully as adaptive and collaborative problem solvers to develop strategies to achieve national security outcomes.” Such “standards” are neither measurable nor focused on winning wars, yet educators congratulate themselves for meeting them, while graduates leave not even knowing what they don’t know.

Here is what we know: the only standard that matters is whether our military officers can prevail in war. As recent events in Afghanistan have demonstrated, we don’t meet that standard. How did we get here?

In 1967, the commandant of the U.S. Army War College wrote that developments since World War II made the old, warfare-focused curriculum “outdated.” As the American military flailed away aimlessly in Vietnam, he argued that “today’s military professional, while first and always a soldier, must also be a diplomat, an economist, a scientist, a historian, and a lawyer.”

This view evolved from the belief that modern conventional and nuclear wars were so devastating that they were no longer worth waging. Political and military leaders sought to make war impossible, and military educators embraced Sun Tzu’s widely misunderstood aphorism, “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” American military professionals must be diplomats, economists, scientists, historians, and lawyers, the thinking went—not to be better at fighting wars but so that the United States would not have to fight wars at all. Professional military education prepared graduates to avoid armed conflict, not prevail in it.

No wonder that graduates of such a system produce weak strategies that fail to explain how our armed forces will fight and win through the intelligent application of force. Instead, these strategies rely on “whole of government” approaches: help from politicians and civilian agencies. If such approaches were viable, civilians in authority would already have employed them and wouldn’t have needed the military in the first place.

The system is broken because the theory at its heart—that wars can always be avoided, and that it is the responsibility of professional soldiers to do the avoiding—was wrong. Preparing not to fight wars has neither averted nor won America’s wars.

By contrast, earlier students at senior military schools studied past wars and military campaigns. They put themselves into the roles of leaders like Washington, Scott, Grant, Sherman, Pershing, Nimitz—planning and executing their campaigns. This instruction produced wartime leaders who could marshal vast fleets, air forces, and armies of well-equipped fighting troops into coherent campaigns. Victory depended upon this intelligent and overwhelming application of force.

Whole-of-government approaches in wartime can supplement, but not replace, military action. Lend-Lease neither forestalled American entry into World War II nor delivered victory on its own. Diplomatic agreements and international charters greatly contributed to success, but military leaders could not—and did not—rely on those efforts alone. They had to fight and win, no matter what the results of Casablanca or Yalta.

Our war colleges must rededicate themselves to the task of instructing students in the problems of fighting and winning. They must teach graduates to reject simplistic analogies, aphorisms, and the latest “revolutionary” developments in warfare. They should teach diplomatic, economic, scientific, historical, legal, and other academic subjects only insofar as they contribute to warfighting. Above all, they must carefully study historical and contemporary conflicts of all types to gain a greater appreciation of the vast complexity of joint warfighting, and then apply it in practice—first, by crafting their own war-winning strategies and campaigns, and then by fighting them out, over and over, in war games and other exercises.

We have forgotten much of what we need to know. We will have to relearn it together. It will be frustrating and difficult, which is why we haven’t done it yet. But seared in our memories now are the images of Afghan people fleeing their homes in terror, some clinging to the wheels of departing American airplanes—a brutal testament to our military’s contemporary inability to achieve victory.

We have failed for decades now in the school of war. The women and men who commence from our war colleges must be equipped with the know-how to fight and win. It’s up to us to teach them how.

Thomas Bruscino, Ph.D., is a military historian and an associate professor in the Department of Military Strategy, Planning, and Operations at the U.S. Army War College. Mitchell G. Klingenberg, Ph.D., is a military historian and a postdoctoral fellow and instructor in the Department of Military Strategy, Planning, and Operations at the U.S. Army War College. The views and opinions presented are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army, or the Department of Defense.

Worse than these errors is their´s insistence: ‘Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.’


Why we are reclaiming history from the distortions of Critical Race Theory


By David Abulafia

In 1984 George Orwell wrote, ‘Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.’  The idea of controlling the past can be traced back long before the emergence of Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. It is the backdrop to boastful inscriptions on the walls of ancient Egyptian temples at Luxor.

Today this idea has taken a new form. A way of reading the past is being imposed in universities, schools and wider society that is justified not by its historical accuracy but by its political message. The adherents of so-called Critical Race Theory (CRT) have no sense that the task of the historian is to expound the evidence, rather than to indulge in moralising jargon. They have no sense that it is important to engage in argument, rather than to impose one’s views. They have no sense that the dogma they are spreading is not taken seriously by very many historians. Or rather, it does need to be taken seriously by its opponents, for it is a dangerously simplistic way of explaining both the past and the present.

History Reclaimed ( https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/ ) is a new website that challenges the increasingly dominant dogma of the Theorists, and demands proper debate about the distorted view of history that lies at the heart of the new thinking. History Reclaimed supports the art of writing history as it has been written ever since the time of Herodotus in ancient Greece: collecting the evidence and assessing it before spinning any general theories about the nature of human development.

Read more here: source

Gregory the Great's priorities remain urgent priorities for our own day

 St. Gregory the Great — A Saint for Today

Fourteen centuries separate us from the pontificate of Gregory the Great, but his priorities remain urgent priorities for our own day.

Master of Portillo, “The Mass of Saint Gregory the Great”
Master of Portillo, “The Mass of Saint Gregory the Great” (photo: Public Domain)

Today is the Memorial of St. Gregory the Great. St. Gregory, one of only three popes to enjoy the appellation “the Great” (John Paul II may someday join them). The parallels between his life and ours are striking.

Gregory was the 64th pope, reigning for 13 years from Sept. 3, 590, to March 12, 604. He’s estimated to have been born around 540, a decade in which the “Plague of Justinian” (a variant of the bubonic plague) was rampant in Italy. Not unlike many young people today, Gregory’s life probably included the experience of pandemic. (According to one source, during a later pestilence in his pontificate, where sneezing was one of the common symptoms, it’s said Gregory was responsible for the custom of responding to the sick with “God bless you.”)

A talented young man from a well-situated family, he had a political career as prefect of Rome at age 33. Rome at this time had been suffering a series of political convulsions as the Gothic kings put an end to the Western Roman Empire. By the mid-to-late sixth century, a modicum of stability had settled in, although the Imperial Government was now in Constantinople.

Talent notwithstanding, Gregory’s focus lay elsewhere and, when his father died, Gregory turned his family estate into a monastery dedicated to St. Andrew the Apostle. He was the first pope to come from the monastic life, and was strongly dedicated to poverty.

But God had other plans. Pope Pelagius II ordained him a deacon and sought his help to solve remnants of Christological controversies still plaguing ecclesiastical unity. Gregory also served that Pope for seven years as his ambassador at the imperial court in Constantinople. Returning to the monastery in Italy, Gregory was elected in 590 to succeed Pelagius.

As pope, Gregory was responsible for sending missionaries that began the Christianization of Britain. Legend says that upon seeing some blond slaves in the Roman slave market, he asked who they were and was told they were Angles (from Anglo-Saxon). “Not Angles not Angels” (non Angli sed angeli) Gregory was alleged to have said, and sent Augustine of Canterbury to undertake that mission. 

In the gap of civil administration and decline left by the fall of the Western Roman Empire (and the East’s neglect of the West), Gregory stepped in. Animated by monastic poverty, Gregory began gathering resources for the relief of the poor of Rome and central Italy.

He was a prodigious theological writer. He undertook liturgical reform. What we call “Gregorian Chant” is named after him. 

Speaking of the liturgy, Gregory took the Mass seriously, and this leads us to important devotional and theological points often depicted in Christian art. Because he was committed to evangelical poverty, he rebuked a dying monk who admitted to hoarding gold against the monastic rule. The man repented but Gregory, concerned for the man’s salvation, ordered a series of Masses to be said for 30 consecutive days for his purification. In his Dialogues, Gregory recounts a vision another monk received on the 30th day of that series, declaring Justus, for whom those Masses had been offered, was freed from Purgatory and taken to heaven as a result of those Masses.

The tradition of “Gregorian Masses” — having 30 consecutive Masses offered for the repose of a deceased person — continues in the Church. A number of religious orders arrange for them, some even for future celebration on notification of death. They can be readily found on the internet. Why not consider making arrangements for yourself and/or a loved one?

Why haven’t you heard about Gregorian Masses? A few reasons come to mind. One is that many parish priests do not want to celebrate them, as it involves a commitment to thirty consecutive days which, in many parishes with limited clergy and daily Mass schedules, is difficult. Another is that our eschatology has assumed a “don’t worry, be happy” hue, where we never talk about Purgatory (much less Hell) because we don’t take seriously enough (1) the incompatibility of any sin with God’s holiness; (2) the pervasiveness of sin (at least venial sin) in our lives; (3) the need to make reparation (i.e., repair) the evil we have done; and (4) the desire not to be “offensive” to others, e.g., the bereaved whom we do not want to “disturb” nor non-Catholics who reject Purgatory.

Gregory thus reaffirmed the Catholic tradition that “it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they be loosed from sins” (2 Maccabees 12:46), especially by celebration of the Eucharist, the “source and summit of the Christian life.”

But Gregory’s focus on the Mass doesn’t end there. “The Mass of St. Gregory” is a favorite iconographic depiction in Christian art, particularly in the Middle Ages and Counter-Reformation periods. The depiction above comes from the Master of Portillo in early 16th-century Spain.

Tradition has it that, once when celebrating Mass, a woman smiled when receiving Communion. Questioned, she laughed at Gregory’s reverence for the host, insisting that it was nothing more than bread she had baked that day. Legend holds the host then appeared as a finger. Subsequently, tradition asserted that the image of Jesus as the “Man of Sorrows” appeared on the altar during the Mass.

In this painting, Gregory is consecrating the host. His monastic tonsure is visible, while a bishop to the rear holds the threefold papal tiara. Two deacons in green dalmatics assist. As Gregory venerates the host, the appearance of Jesus as Man of Sorrows is before him, the blood from his stigmata appearing to empty into the chalice. 

In our own day, faith in the Real Presence likewise remains weak. Bad catechesis has contributed to what appears to be widespread American Catholic misunderstanding of the Eucharist as merely “symbols” of Jesus’ Presence rather than the genuine Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, made present everyday on our altars throughout the world.

Almost a millennium and a half separate us from the pontificate of Gregory the Great, but the priorities this reform pope stressed — the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the universal call to holiness and the necessity of reparation for sin, the missionary impulse, and a purified Church in service to the poor (Gregory was responsible for popularizing the papal title “Servant of the Servants of God”) — remain amazingly real priorities for our own day.

Source:read here


The Communist Party of China (CPC) is Marxist, Communist, and Leninist

 China “Proves That Marxism Works”: The 100th Anniversary Document



“Historical” document shows the CCP is disturbed by both Western opinions that it is no longer Marxist and feelings in China that it is becoming too much Marxist.

by Massimo Introvigne


Presented with much fanfare as the main document of the CCP’s 100th anniversary, a long text on “The CCP: Its Mission and Contributions” has been published on August 26 by the Propaganda Department (now renamed in English the “Publicity Department”) of the Party’s Central Committee. That it has been published both in Chinese and in English, which recently is not often the case for CCP documents, is in itself important.

The document, besides celebrating the achievements and victories of the CCP in 100 years, appears to have been devised to counter two allegations, which mightily disturb President Xi Jinping. The first, which comes from Western media and some Western scholars, is that the CCP is no longer Marxist. The second, which is more present within China but also scares some foreign investors, is that the CCP under Xi Jinping is becoming again too much Marxist, which may eventually damage Chinese economy and the value of foreign investments.

The most interesting parts of the document are those answering these two allegations. The text reiterates what Xi Jinping emphasizes every week: that the CCP is Marxist, Communist, and Leninist, and that those who raise doubts about it lie.

...

READ MORE

jueves, 2 de septiembre de 2021

If love for animals comes at the expense of humans, that’s not an example of moral worth. It’s a sign of moral collapse.


Top dog: how animals captured politics


by William Moore 

Bishops are a part of English culture,’ T.S. Eliot wrote in 1948, ‘and horses and dogs are a part of English religion.’ It was a joke. Is it still? Today the fervour for animal lives is so strong that at times it can certainly feel religious. Politicians like to tell us that we are a ‘nation of animal lovers’ because it is such an uncontroversial truth. But if love for animals comes at the expense of humans, that’s not an example of moral worth. It’s a sign of moral collapse.

The evacuation of Kabul offered a clear example. Pen Farthing, a former soldier who had settled in the city, was offered a flight home, but said he would not travel without the dogs and cats in his animal sanctuary. It seemed preposterous. There were days left to evacuate thousands of people. But after the public outpouring of support in Britain for his campaign, known as ‘Operation Ark’, the military yielded. An aircraft left Afghanistan with the animals while the abandoned humans, including members of Farthing’s staff, looked on.

Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, told MPs last week that he has ‘soldiers on the ground who have been diverted from saving those people because of inaccurate stories, inaccurate lobbying’. He later said that Farthing’s supporters had taken up ‘too much time’ from senior commanders. Dominic Dyer — an animal welfare activist, friend of Carrie Johnson, and Farthing’s chief supporter — thanked Boris Johnson for backing Operation Ark ‘because he knew it was the right thing to do’.

Solzhenitsyn: mensajes para el siglo XXI por Pablo López Herrera

 Solzhenitsyn: mensajes para el siglo XXI

por Pablo López Herrera

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFyOMUyFDbo