|
MaxxBot posted:I would disagree with both the nationalist viewpoint and the viewpoint put forward by the OP. I would certainly agree about "the vast hypocrisy and violence of US foreign policy and the demonstrable emptiness of its claims of supporting freedom and democracy at home and abroad" as would most of D&D, that's not a super controversial opinion here. My issue with the nationalists is that they look at a lovely country or one that does something against their own interests and conclude by default that we must work for regime change if not outright military invasion. The answer is everyone knows that these criticisms often lead to broader "policy" that goes for all those things and that most likely the narrative building that goes on isn't necessarily in the name of human rights but push a path in a broader geopolitical struggle. Russians specifically, including everyday people, immediately assume it is a dishonest tactic and is part of a chess game. Ultimately they have a giant blind spot of the faults of their government because of this but often they are right at the same time. The "left" has got three options: support the Western narrative even knowing it will most likely be part of some type of cynical policy, support the Russian narrative that ignores the abuses that are going on or simply try to remain neutral and/or attack them both.
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
Math Debater posted:Thanks to Dilkington's very interesting post in this thread, I've been searching the Internet for information about Aleksandr Dugin and his "Fourth Political Theory" movement. He's a pretty interesting guy with interesting ideas, though the stuff on his Wikipedia page that I've quoted seems kinda wacky to me. You're welcome MD! You might also be interested in Dugin's description of the Eurasianist project, i.e. merging the right and left into a common front against western liberalism! http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/06/alexander-dugin-on-white-nationalism/ Also, have you heard of Mimi Al Laham? You may know her as "Syrian Partisan Girl." She has been a gadfly to the west from the very beginning, and was instrumental in exposing US/Zionist parapolitics in Syria. http://davidduke.com/world-famous-syrian-partisan-girl-interviewed-by-dr-duke-listen-here/
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
'False Consciousness' 'Historic Future' lol Russia's Sayid Qutb
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I would disagree with both the nationalist viewpoint and the viewpoint put forward by the OP. I would certainly agree about "the vast hypocrisy and violence of US foreign policy and the demonstrable emptiness of its claims of supporting freedom and democracy at home and abroad" as would most of D&D, that's not a super controversial opinion here. My issue with the nationalists is that they look at a lovely country or one that does something against their own interests and conclude by default that we must work for regime change if not outright military invasion. The criticisms are largely true, yes. It really was true that black people in the 1960s United States were being treated extremely poorly and it really was true that Soviet intellectuals noticed this and were extremely critical of the US as a result. That the claims are true is not the issue. The issue is that they're easy and meaningless, a way to posture as standing up for human rights with zero risk to oneself, even of being criticized. A way to feel good without sacrificing or accomplishing anything, even thinking or acting critically or outside the norm. It's also not even a neutral phenomenon, it's a really handy and lazy go-to way to deflect attention from and minimize American problems, especially by right-wingers and nationalists. "Why are you so critical of [any bad thing in America]? Don't you know it's a lot worse in [name of non-ally country where it may or may not be worse]?" There are so many examples of this in every arena that to list them is gratuitous, but there are a couple of mild examples in your own post. Then there is the fact that despite your personal opinion, these sorts of arguments are really-existing excuses for every hegemonic action, and not just by us. What do you think the average Russian says when another Russian criticizes invading Crimea? Probably some variant of "Why don't you criticize the US, which is much worse?".
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
I would love to ask Ted Cruz how he can say Christians in America are persecuted when the Egyptian military deposes a democratically elected conservative party and guns down its supporters.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I would love to ask Ted Cruz how he can say Christians in America are persecuted when the Egyptian military deposes a democratically elected conservative party and guns down its supporters. You know now your making it sound like everyone here should be supporting Sisi.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You know now your making it sound like everyone here should be supporting Sisi. Eurasia is a bottomless well of evil ghosts and contradictions. The Americas are 'free' from Eurasia's sectarian borders and instituions, but globalization risks the end of that.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I would love to ask Ted Cruz how he can say Christians in America are persecuted when the Egyptian military deposes a democratically elected conservative party and guns down its supporters. That party espoused a violent ideology, it needed to be wiped out. But I'm al-Sisi: I don't espouse violent ideologies, I carry them out with a minimum of announcement beforehand.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Any fool can rail against military dictatorships who are not our allies. But how much railing about Egypt is going on? About Saudi Arabia or Israel? A lot, actually. Not from the government but all over the press.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
I have seen articles from the US press heavily criticizing Russian arms sales to Egypt, without mentioning that we have continued to sell them all types of poo poo at the same time. A big order of everything from Abrams tanks to Harpoon missiles recently went through. Hell, even the New York Times seems to have taken a pretty cold war shift lately. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/magazine/out-of-my-mouth-comes-unimpeachable-manly-truth.html?_r=0 Russian TV News is ridiculous but at the same time a Russian could write some story about watching Fox News in a hotel room in Moscow and it being insane and brain-numbing. That is the ultimately the issue: if you are going to call upon moral authority to take dramatic actions against the population of a country, it helps to actually have something to back it up with. The US still has the power that pretty much no other country has on earth, and its actions simply carry far more weight because of it. If the US wants to know out a government on the other side of the world, it is pretty much alone in maybe being able to get it done. That type of power requires more responsibility and greater accountability not less. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 10:12 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That type of power requires more responsibility and greater accountability not less. I agree that's why any communist superpower had to go. 100 million killed = do not pass go, do not collect $200.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 17:27
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I agree that's why any communist superpower had to go. 100 million killed = do not pass go, do not collect $200. Too bad the US hitched itself to the PRC then, also the Black Book of Communism is nonsense. Like seriously it is a an embarrassment in the field. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:39 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Lowest estimate I've heard from Black Book critics is 65 mil, so eh, no biggie I guess. I'm sure you can find me similar numbers in the great post-WW2 first world famine and intellectual purges.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Lowest estimate I've heard from Black Book critics is 65 mil, so eh, no biggie I guess. I'm sure you can find me similar numbers in the great post-WW2 first world famine and intellectual purges. You probably should look at famines and death under European colonialism then if you want to play the statistic game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State Also, the PRC is still around and if anything is a far powerful state due to trade with the US. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:00 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Yes, but over how much time is the latter? 3 to 2 hundred years? Or are we meaning in the immediate bits where colonialism was being critiqued? Then it is probably a bit less. Also isn't this cutting to the heart of the problem "You do bad thing" "Yeah well you do to" "yeah but yours is worse because x" etc, is kind of the whole point. No nation or belief system ever wants to examine itself too closely for all the bits that don't "fit" it's idea for what it likes to pretend to be and the more you try and point it out the less people want to listen. Also the PRC is certainly not even close to a Communist state any more. If it ever was in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I have seen articles from the US press heavily criticizing Russian arms sales to Egypt, without mentioning that we have continued to sell them all types of poo poo at the same time. A big order of everything from Abrams tanks to Harpoon missiles recently went through. The difference being that non-Fox News perspectives are actively represented in the US press. Having a free press means a very broad range of diverse opinions are represented, so I don't understand why you would cherry-pick articles saying one thing when I would bet money that you could find an article somewhere expressing the exact opposite opinion that's just as freely available. When I google search for news about China or Russia I have to sift through a small army of apologist websites before I find anything that I would personally consider reliable, but those apologist websites are there, saying what they want, and nobody is threatening to shut them down. This isn't something that you can say about Russia, China, or many of America's other geopolitical rivals. Shrugging off the oppression and silencing of the press in places like Russia or China with a tu quoque "yeah but you have Fox News" is exactly the sort of garbage leftism that should be being thoroughly mocked, not considered a valid argument.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Yes, but over how much time is the latter? 3 to 2 hundred years? Or are we meaning in the immediate bits where colonialism was being critiqued? Then it is probably a bit less. You can easily say within 100 years there was plenty of death in the British Empire depending on how you want to frame it, ultimately though the British Empire is remembered in a very different manner than Stalinism. Of course that is the point right, but ultimately how do you respond to a criticism like "Communism killed 100 million"? Do you just accept it as it is even if most historians agree it is very problematic? Do you refuse to mention the context? One side has to give up so the other can win? I mean it is obvious there was going to be no consensus and the battle lines were already set. It doesn't really matter, the Soviet Union was already going heavily in a market direction before it collapsed as well. White washing the PRC compared to the Soviet Union is nonsensical especially since the US opened relations not long after most of those deaths from famine occurred. Maybe Nixon's handshake was the healing touch? Fojar38 posted:The difference being that non-Fox News perspectives are actively represented in the US press. Having a free press means a very broad range of diverse opinions are represented, so I don't understand why you would cherry-pick articles saying one thing when I would bet money that you could find an article somewhere expressing the exact opposite opinion that's just as freely available. When I google search for news about China or Russia I have to sift through a small army of apologist websites before I find anything that I would personally consider reliable, but those apologist websites are there, saying what they want, and nobody is threatening to shut them down. The issue is scale, leftist sites are relatively minuscule compared to heavy hitters like the News Corp. That plurality of opinion exists but it is about the weight it is given. Obviously, the US has far more press freedom than Russia but at the same time, the media most Americans are going to exposed is going to be from a large newspaper/tv channel still even if that is changing. Let's be honest here in D&D, you can't post a article from a socialist website but the NYT is no issue. But let's be clear here, the narrative in the NYT article was that the Russian population was being brainwashed by their media into zombies, a narrative not even the NYT would say about Fox News or CNN. That half truth is at the core of what they are going. You can believe a country has far worse press freedoms, but at the same time, there is a point when you go too far in assuming your own moral superiority on the issue to the point of going on a crusading mission for it. However, now if you're a journalist in Russia that is something different, and if anything is extremely dangerous and worth criticizing Putin's regime for but at the same time, it is question of what you are hoping to achieve. (Btw the Russian internet is pretty free compared to somewhere like China, there isn't a firewall.)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:You can easily say within 100 years there was plenty of death in the British Empire depending on how you want to frame it, ultimately though the British Empire is remembered in a very different manner than Stalinism. True enough, but then again what else was being done at the time alongside that. The British Empire is, and remains, one of the worst things ever inflicted on a reluctant globe by a series of hideously moustachioed crazy people. I suppose the best thing to respond with would be pointing out the hypocrisy, as you have done, but perhaps going off and simply saying that was a different time and a very different style of ruling than anything that would be attempted now may well be a good option. But continually going your system is worse because it caused x doesn't necessarily work to persuade people unless you base the other argument in the present moment. Like doing things like pointing out how bad a lot of Soviet era policies were whilst also pointing out other problems at the time and then mention what you are doing that is better. I dunno, I am bad at persuading people. Well how much information did anyone have about the Famine at an above local level, sure you can think "Oh famine" and tut your head, but when you look at it's scale now you kind of realised "holy poo poo!". And I doubt that China's history has been white washed much, it's simply that Russia's is seen as one hell of a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:True enough, but then again what else was being done at the time alongside that. The British Empire is, and remains, one of the worst things ever inflicted on a reluctant globe by a series of hideously moustachioed crazy people. Well, in that sense, the amount of people killed in China was numerically much higher if you rely on famine numbers, and China's political repression easily matched Stalinism. Russia is seen as a hell of a lot worse, because the Soviet Union was far more of a threat especially after Nixon went to China. If anything under Gorbachev, the Soviets were softening quicker than China was. Obviously, you can say it was a "different time" but the counter-argument would be simply those crimes can't be erased etc. Ultimately, the narratives around "Black Book of Communism" is usually used are pretty much attack all forms of leftism. Even if people don't know of the book itself, there know the narratives it builds from and the is a reason why Obama was called a "socialist" if not a "communist" in the first place was to attach him to Stalin and Mao. You can't ignore the deaths and tragedy that happened but there has to be context and accuracy. In context, the 19th and 20th century was full of brutality from multiple empires and much of deaths that happened under them are still being argued about. For example, purposeful deaths under the Nazis are assumed to be far closer to 20 million from 1939-1945 addition to the tens of millions who died fighting against them during the war.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Obviously, you can say it was a "different time" but the counter-argument would be simply those crimes can't be erased etc. Ultimately, the narratives around "Black Book of Communism" is usually used are pretty much attack all forms of leftism. Even if people don't know of the book itself, there know the narratives it builds from and the is a reason why Obama was called a "socialist" if not a "communist" in the first place was to attach him to Stalin and Mao. Could it be that, more so than otherwise, the people in charge at the top did these things on purpose? In the case of Empire there was clear division between how things were supposed to work and how they did because it was farmed out to a great deal of different private and public entities which lead to a small number, though not majority, of the situations in the imperialised nations. In the case of Mao and Stalin the top down directives were being ordered by one person and then executed (sometimes literally) down a chain of command with no changes in between, according to the narrative. Perhaps that is what makes it easier to blame "Communism" as some all encompassing boogey man because it is associated with one man and a terrible moustache doing horrific things, where as in the case of Empire the blame for all of the things associated with it is more diffuse and wide ranging?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Could it be that, more so than otherwise, the people in charge at the top did these things on purpose? In the case of Empire there was clear division between how things were supposed to work and how they did because it was farmed out to a great deal of different private and public entities which lead to a small number, though not majority, of the situations in the imperialised nations. In the case of Mao and Stalin the top down directives were being ordered by one person and then executed (sometimes literally) down a chain of command with no changes in between, according to the narrative. Perhaps that is what makes it easier to blame "Communism" as some all encompassing boogey man because it is associated with one man and a terrible moustache doing horrific things, where as in the case of Empire the blame for all of the things associated with it is more diffuse and wide ranging? That makes it sound like it's not leftism that's judged too harshly, but dictatorships.  (Actually, expressing admiration for right-wing dictators gets you far more ostracized than expressing admiration for left-wing dictators, although Pinochet is an exception.) The "on purpose" aspect is debatable in Mao's case; I was under the impression that he was not very sane and his subordinates were afraid to give him bad news. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 23:20 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
With a thread title like this, I was expecting a Kyoon thread. You have no idea how disappointed I am.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Could it be that, more so than otherwise, the people in charge at the top did these things on purpose? In the case of Empire there was clear division between how things were supposed to work and how they did because it was farmed out to a great deal of different private and public entities which lead to a small number, though not majority, of the situations in the imperialised nations. In the case of Mao and Stalin the top down directives were being ordered by one person and then executed (sometimes literally) down a chain of command with no changes in between, according to the narrative. Perhaps that is what makes it easier to blame "Communism" as some all encompassing boogey man because it is associated with one man and a terrible moustache doing horrific things, where as in the case of Empire the blame for all of the things associated with it is more diffuse and wide ranging? Both had broad bureaucracies that carried out orders though and in essence they were also fairly centralized systems (at least under the Raj). Maybe British officials aren't as iconic as Stalin or Mao? In all three cases though, there was usually a combination of mass negligence and intent. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:37 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Both had broad bureaucracies that carried out orders though and in essence they were also fairly centralized systems (at least under the Raj). Maybe British officials aren't as iconic as Stalin or Mao? In all three cases though, there was usually a combination of mass negligence and actions that can be considered borderline. Fairly centralised, but with a shared overview that was orchestrated from further away. You have the fact that the rhetoric of London was frequently different to the ones on the ground (as always) but that the actual orders sent down the chain were often less applicable. And I would say that, at least with Stalin, it is not necessarily negligence. Mao and the Raj (to lesser extents and for different reasons) sure, but with Stalin I think he seemed to be fairly keen to know who was getting purged next week.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Fairly centralised, but with a shared overview that was orchestrated from further away. You have the fact that the rhetoric of London was frequently different to the ones on the ground (as always) but that the actual orders sent down the chain were often less applicable. And I would say that, at least with Stalin, it is not necessarily negligence. Mao and the Raj (to lesser extents and for different reasons) sure, but with Stalin I think he seemed to be fairly keen to know who was getting purged next week. Ultimately though both Soviet and British responses were fairly similar, both showed a lack of concern for local populations and shipped grain from deprived areas to ones they desired. Both of them had their own biases and motives for ignoring the plight of the population. You may want to say Stalin "wanted" this more than the British who simply didn't care one way or another who died, but the sources don't really reveal much in that sense. It may have been a biased response but at the same time is unclear if it was really ethnic-focused in nature (compared to other poor responses to Russian and Kazakh populations during famine). I think in the end there is a complete lack of concern in both cases and the intend was for the needs of the state not the population.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
MechaStalin posted:Forget BlackOps the main series was all scare mongering over Russian nationalism. They literally combine Limonov's national bolshevik party with Al Qaeda into a super boogeyman. As if bringing the Soviet Union back would be a bad thing for the world. More things reek about EA than its poo poo buisness practices. Bringing the Soviet Union back under national bolshevik control would be a very bad thing, as they ain't communists, they're weird slightly lefter than Hitler himself, but not much, Russian Nazi types. And they insist that more of Asia needs to be under Russian control than was under their control during the Soviet years. They're pretty lovely people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
This thread is some pretty good pro-Western propaganda, though probably not in the sense that people wish it was 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:This thread is some pretty good pro-Western propaganda, though probably not in the sense that people wish it was Let joiners join.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Is it wrong that all the pro communists in here make me angry because I have relatives who are begging to come to the west, and could have easily gone to Russia, both now and during the USSR, (I mean gently caress, my grandma worked in the USSR for 10 years, my uncle worked with their rocket program exchange when he was with NASA 15 years ago, I mean honestly, the USSR's science programs were literally ran by an army of alcoholic researchers who had vodka in the vending machines, their UHF tower technology would give you cancer, and the anti black racism there is worse than the US, even during the worst of the civil rights movement, but well, this is what I expect from a bunch of younger guys with no institutional memory of the Soviet Union. Sorry, its just that this thread bothered me, a lot and I needed to comment on its well, wrongness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Is it wrong that all the pro communists in here make me angry because I have relatives who are begging to come to the west, and could have easily gone to Russia, both now and during the USSR, (I mean gently caress, my grandma worked in the USSR for 10 years, my uncle worked with their rocket program exchange when he was with NASA 15 years ago, I mean honestly, the USSR's science programs were literally ran by an army of alcoholic researchers who had vodka in the vending machines, their UHF tower technology would give you cancer, and the anti black racism there is worse than the US, even during the worst of the civil rights movement, but well, this is what I expect from a bunch of younger guys with no institutional memory of the Soviet Union. Sorry, its just that this thread bothered me, a lot and I needed to comment on its well, wrongness. Whaa?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
The OP is this sort of weird, 1960-1970s defense of the East sort of piece that I would find in my grandma's notes, the sort of "Oh the West is bad too, all join hands in collectivism," sort of piece that is blatantly propaganda, combined with the modern Syria Girl style "I have no idea of these actual ideals" that I hear about indirectly. It just pissed me off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
When I think of horrors of communism I usually go to the vodka vending machines as my #1. Edit: Secret police? Mass murder? Exporting global conflict? No no no, I'm going to low corporate morale. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Is it wrong that all the pro communists in here make me angry because I have relatives who are begging to come to the west, and could have easily gone to Russia, both now and during the USSR, (I mean gently caress, my grandma worked in the USSR for 10 years, my uncle worked with their rocket program exchange when he was with NASA 15 years ago, I mean honestly, the USSR's science programs were literally ran by an army of alcoholic researchers who had vodka in the vending machines, their UHF tower technology would give you cancer, and the anti black racism there is worse than the US, even during the worst of the civil rights movement, but well, this is what I expect from a bunch of younger guys with no institutional memory of the Soviet Union. Sorry, its just that this thread bothered me, a lot and I needed to comment on its well, wrongness. Ryand-Smith posted:The OP is this sort of weird, 1960-1970s defense of the East sort of piece that I would find in my grandma's notes, the sort of "Oh the West is bad too, all join hands in collectivism," sort of piece that is blatantly propaganda, combined with the modern Syria Girl style "I have no idea of these actual ideals" that I hear about indirectly. It just pissed me off. Are you having a stroke or are you just drunkposting? Because this stuff is hella incoherent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Are you having a stroke or are you just drunkposting? Because this stuff is hella incoherent. and this is different from the OP and all of the other non-arguments being voiced in this thread how...?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:and this is different from the OP and all of the other non-arguments being voiced in this thread how...? Because OP is obviously trolling, but this guy seems earnest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Because Trayvon, Stalin is okay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Because Trayvon, Stalin is okay. Well, as long as he stays dead, sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Nobody badmouths Scandinavian social democracy because everyone knows it owns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Nobody badmouths Scandinavian social democracy because everyone knows it owns. Every Scandinavian I know is racist as gently caress so I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Is it wrong that all the pro communists in here make me angry because I have relatives who are begging to come to the west, and could have easily gone to Russia, both now and during the USSR, (I mean gently caress, my grandma worked in the USSR for 10 years, my uncle worked with their rocket program exchange when he was with NASA 15 years ago, I mean honestly, the USSR's science programs were literally ran by an army of alcoholic researchers who had vodka in the vending machines, their UHF tower technology would give you cancer, and the anti black racism there is worse than the US, even during the worst of the civil rights movement, but well, this is what I expect from a bunch of younger guys with no institutional memory of the Soviet Union. Sorry, its just that this thread bothered me, a lot and I needed to comment on its well, wrongness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:36
|
|