|
Putin’s Musings On ‘Wokeness’
While I mused about 'wokeness' yesterday a smarter and more important man than me discussed it in a wider context. Russia's president Vladimir Putin spoke at the yearly Valdai Discussion Club meeting where he drew parallels between the Bolshevik revolution and what is currently happening in the 'west':
The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.
This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour. I specifically asked my colleagues to find the following quote from Martin Luther King: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by their character.” This is the true value. However, things are turning out differently there. By the way, the absolute majority of Russian people do not think that the colour of a person's skin or their gender is an important matter. Each of us is a human being. This is what matters.
In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.
Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “'birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.
Not to mention some truly monstrous things when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl and vice versa. That is, the teachers actually impose on them a choice we all supposedly have. They do so while shutting the parents out of the process and forcing the child to make decisions that can upend their entire life. They do not even bother to consult with child psychologists – is a child at this age even capable of making a decision of this kind? Calling a spade a spade, this verges on a crime against humanity, and it is being done in the name and under the banner of progress.
Well, if someone likes this, let them do it. I have already mentioned that, in shaping our approaches, we will be guided by a healthy conservatism. …
Putin's speech was much longer and touched on many other issue. I recommend to read it in full.
I understand where Putin is going, but his speech is full of mythology about the Bolsheviks.
Note: Putin is clearly talking about the 1917-1929 period, not the Stalinist period (Russians today still have the bad habit of feeding the myth Stalin “corrected” or even eradicated the Bolshevik doctrine, when the reality was the polar opposite: he applied the Bolshevik program to the letter, up to his death).
1) the Bolsheviks were a political party. It’s one thing to be a political party and demand democratic centralism, it’s another thing when you’re just a loose movement that tries to force your worldview over the masses through random and erratic bullying and NGO/Greenpeace-like activism;
2) nowadays we treat Leninism as the most pure, dogmatic form of Marxism, but that’s hindsight and anachronism. When the Bolsheviks took power and even before, Lenin’s Marxism was considered to be an extremely exotic, Russified (Asiatic), peasant, even bizarre, variant of Marxism, by those who considered themselves to be the legitimate heirs to Marx’s thinking – the German Social-Democrats. It certainly couldn’t have crossed Marx’s mind in the 19th Century a guy like Lenin would be his successor, even though the claim the SPD is the torchbearer of Marxism was always pure mythology;
3) in the context of the Bolsheviks, the idea of re-founding everything – including cultural values – made complete sense, because the Tsarist world simply evaporated with the impacts of WWI. When the Bolsheviks took power, they took it by W.O., there was nothing left to build upon;
4) during the early revolutionary years, everything was discussed and ventilated. To this day, the ideas of women’s rights codified by the Soviet is unparalleled even by the most progressive Nordic country. But those extremely revolutionary ideas never got out of the paper. As we know, family – in the cultural sense – was never really abolished in the USSR. We should be very careful when analyzing documents from the 1920s, because most of it never became reality. The idea that the Bolsheviks wanted to “communalize” women, normalize orgies etc. etc. is pure myth – Lenin himself disapproved those ideas as far too distant to the realities of the time. The accusation of some group or culture of promoting orgies and abolishing the family is a common Christian propaganda throughout the centuries which they inherited from the Romans (who themselves accused the Christians of promoting orgies and mass human sacrifices when they were still pagan), and should not be taken seriously;
5) there was intense competition and freedom of artistic manifestation during the 1920s, specially in literature. The USSR was the most advanced nation in the arts during the 1920s. It was only after Stalin that the State took arts under its economic planning. Putin is, therefore, committing an anachronism;
6) context is everything. The Bolsheviks were a political party with a long-term plan. They followed that plan. Whatever happened in the cultural front may or may not have been simply collateral effect of the main goal, which was the economy (industrialization). We should separate what was part of the plan from what was simply a side effect of the implementation of the plan. Many culture/art historians – specially beginners – have difficulty in articulating the interaction between the two. The present-day woke left is completely different from the Bolsheviks for many reasons, the main one being that the Woke don’t have a plan: they just do their bullying to try to preserve the supremacy of the American Empire at all costs;
7) it is a simply attestation of the facts that the Woke Left not only is not a descendant of the Bolsheviks, but is also anti-Bolshevik, in the sense they’re anti-Marxist and anti-communist. They’re clearly a symptom of the logical development of Liberalism. It is normal for Western peoples (and the present-day Russians are a Western people in the ideological and cultural sense) to rationalize that decay and decline can only happen to Communists, but the fact is it does happen to everyone. The Bolsheviks didn’t patent the symptoms of decline, we should separate the theory from the contradictions of society. I think the matter is that capitalism has been dominant for so long that non-revolutionary people simply cannot imagine that it is just another period in human history, but that’s the objective reality;
8) the West in general – and the USA in particular – is as close (if not closer) to being a neofascist (alt-right; far-right) dystopia as it is from being a woke dystopia; the argument that the only existential threat for the West only comes from the left side of the political spectrum simply goes against empirical evidence;
9) the economic achievements of the USSR put the economic achievements of the Russian Federation to shame, so I think Putin should be a little bit more humble before shitting on people that are orders of magnitude greater than him (100 years from now, nobody will remember who Putin was). Even the military toys Russia has nowadays it only has because of the Bolsheviks, so a little bit of gratitude would also be very welcome (being a conservative, Putin should know about being a gentleman – but I think conservatives don’t treat communists as human beings).
Posted by: vk | Oct 22 2021 16:00 utc | 5
In response to vk@40,
It’s okay to criticize and manifest one’s opinion on some history. But every opinion and analysis must start with the truth. Without the truth, all analysis and opinions are imaginary – we would be no different than crazy people in mental hospitals.
The “truth” of history is seldom known or shared even by the people living in the middle of it, much less so historians or future analysts. The only people who can confidently claim to know the truth about historical events are ideologues. I believe we both agree that Putin is not an ideologue but a moderate, so it would be uncharacteristic of him to heed your advice. He would, presumably, favor keeping the finger on the pulse of Russian public perception and general consensus regarding their own recent history, which I expect is what he has done here.
Things that Putin states on the Bolshevik era pre-Stalin are objective lies. They can be demonstrated through evidence.
Pre-Stalin isn’t a tangible component in Putin’s monologue, but something you’ve ascribed to it. He mentions two dates in a specific context, but his monologue encompasses the entirety of the Soviet experience. Other than that, I’m at a loss as to what sort of evidence you hope to bring against statements such as:
– Bolsheviks wanted to change existing customs, existing principles of human morality and the existing social structure
– Bolsheviks were intolerant of views that contradicted that goal
– Bolsheviks sought to suppress the most obvious source of conservatism, namely religious authority and tightly knit family units
If these statements are lies, then the bolsheviks weren’t actually interested in social reform (but did it anyways?), weren’t particularly goal oriented (presumably, they faced no opposition at home nor abroad) and lacked the most basic competency and perception of what was needed to modernize a pre-industrial society and fully exploit its human resource.
– Encouragement to inform based on ideological differences
– The Central Committee exerted creative control over mass-media, to a lesser degree than Hollywood does today.
– (Implied) The works of authors banned from being taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward
This fits in with my personal experience. My father, working in the field of culture and entertainment, had a work-related permit for travel abroad, which was revoked due to him bringing home forbidden literature and a neighbor informing the authorities. There was no further penalty involved, from what I can recall. The books were obviously confiscated and dad had to go to several interviews with some committee. My parents also half-joked, I assume, that the apartment was bugged from then on — but that itself unpleasantly played into natural human paranoia. The travel restrictions were initially intended to be permanent, which is a bit much, but after almost 10 years and towards the end of the 80’s, what with the liberalization, they were eventually lifted.
The only way that I can rationalize this series of events, is to imagine the books in question as being written on the skins of newborn babes by prehistoric Necromancers and used to summon shoggoths from the void, plaguing the dreams of our neighbors with horrible visions and potentially spelling doom for all of humanity, if not for the experts on the super-natural under government employ. Since they were actually very mundane pieces of literature, remembering this period in my life is comical and surreal, if not for the parallels I observe in the current development of Western society.
They result in an absurd conclusion/moral lesson: that the USA is under the risk of falling to a Bolshevik Revolution.
That’s not the conclusion I made when I read the monologue, and I don’t believe its the conclusion Putin intends for his listeners. I would expect that they, being composed primarily of Soviet citizens, like I, will instead think back to the various perplexing anachronisms of living under a dogma that permeates all aspects of life. The intended audience is intelligent enough to differentiate between Soviet communism in terms of goals and achievements in reforming society or raising the standards of living and education, and Soviet communism in terms of being spoon-fed what to think, say, do, which information was permissible and how the state reacted to, and primed the public to react to, non-conformity.
On that note, it’s both disrespectful and inadvisable to argue against lived experience, since it calls honesty into question and puts an end to civil debate. Admittedly, there is no shortage of tall-tales or self-proclaimed experts who are more accurately described as political hacks.
That is a false dichotomy, as there’s absolutely zero chance the Woke movement will ever take power in the USA, while the Bolsheviks were true world history actors, a real threat to capitalism.
No, I think this is the false dichotomy. Why do they need to “take power” or pose a threat to capitalism to create an ideologically repressed society with obvious Soviet parallels? Can’t their views simply be exploited by the capitalist elite to solidify their control over the US? Can’t they erode the fabric of society from the grass-roots up, abetted by the inaction and waning influence of the ruling classes? What of the global influence of infectious ideas in the era of mass-communication, and the potential threat of culture clashes and shocks domestically? These and many other potential scenarios are perfectly harmonious with Putin’s statements on the matter, parallels with Soviet authoritarianism notwithstanding.
I don’t mean to be rude, but I believe you’re so heavily invested in your ideology that it’s preventing you from examining things from a more nuanced perspective.
Posted by: Skiffer | Oct 22 2021 23:30 utc | 54
@ Posted by: Skiffer | Oct 23 2021 0:21 utc | 58
Sure, he’s making a political – not a scientific – speech. But, even by political standards, he sets a very dangerous precedent, because he’s essentially calling for the American elites to crush the Wokists because they represent some kind of risk of an American version of the Bolshevik Revolution – a risk that doesn’t exist.
Aside from the fact that the Wokists are simply intellectually and organizationally inferior to the Bolsheviks and that, contrary to the Bolsheviks, they don’t have any comprehensive long-term economic plan (which is what sustains cultural hegemony), we have to take another very important factor in mind: the Bolsheviks saved Russia from extinction, while the Wokists are simply trying to destroy an empire that so far is in no existential risk at all.
If it wasn’t for the Bolsheviks picking the pieces together, Russia certainly wouldn’t exist. For starters, the Tsar already was performing badly on the battlefield, losing precious territory in the far east to Japan in 1905. Then, his army started to get mauled by the Germans in 1914-1917, having already lost many territories in the West. The bourgeois government of February-October 1917 continue this trend of defeats, serving as essentially a parliamentary continuation of the Tsarist Empire (already in shambles). Trotsky described the February Government as a last, desperate attempt by the Tsar to save his empire by giving ground to the most radical components of the local bourgeoisie. No wonder it didn’t last much long.
After the Tsarist Empire finally collapse, the land system evaporated: peasants started to take land from the kulaks by force, in an anarchic movement that was only given some cohesion (i.e. by keeping Russia existing) because the Bolsheviks, taken vacant power in Moscow and St. Petersburg, issued a decree legalizing land reform right after the Revolution and then promulgated more legislation giving all power to the (local) soviets. This maneuver alone saved Russia from disintegration from within. It then proceeded to keep the armed forces and the main State institutions together, even if in a Soviet (socialist) logic. The army (Red Army) then defeated the proxy forces of the imperialist powers (UK, France, Czechoslovakia and the USA) in the “Civil War”, keeping territorial cohesion of Russia. Yes, the Western provinces (Finland, Poland etc.) had to be let go because they already were very unstable in the tsarist era, but Russia (USSR) kept the rest. Japan occupied Siberia through a puppet republic that was defeated by the Red Army. The Chinese then had to give up any hope of advancing past Outer Mongolia, which only did not become a Soviet Republic because the Bolsheviks didn’t see much value in it as a full-fledged territory. Brest-Litovsk gave the USSR time to breath and recover, and some month later Germany collapsed (November 1918). Transcaucasia was kept only because of Bolshevik perseverance (it had a strong bourgeoisie and wanted independence a la Finland) – that “identity politics” guaranteed the Russian people the oil fields of the Caucasus.
By the end of the Civil War, the Bolsheviks were the indisputable lords of Russia. There was no doubt – be it in the city, be it in the countryside – that the Bolsheviks didn’t represent the legitimate Russia and, therefore, everything Russian. Russian nationalism already was a thing from the beginning of the October Revolution, it didn’t come out of nothing because of Stalin’s magic. Even the peasants, not being communists, were Bolsheviks. They fought with no doubts in their hearts they were on Russia’s side when they served the Red Army against the White Army; there is no evidence the reincorporated Tsarist officers ever thought of toppling the Bolsheviks, even with Trotsky commanding them (Trotsky only became “the intellectual” after he was ousted in 1926; during Lenin’s era, he was famous for being an excellent administrator and bureaucrat). If it wasn’t for the Bolsheviks, Russia would probably only exist as just another European micro-nation, extending not much beyond the old borders of Novgorod; Germany would certainly be able to keep the southern territories up to the Caucasus, Japan would command Siberia through its puppet republic and eventually would have gobbled up the rest of the east, Transcaucasia would be independent and the Polish Empire – having the backing of the British – would certainly have some more territory up to somewhere in White Russia (Belarus), Romania would evidently preserve forever the frontiers of Romania Mare (i.e. up to Bessarabia) and maybe even gain Western Ukraine (“Transnistria”) from Germany/Poland; being cut off of Asia, the remaining Central Asian provinces would probably either be absorbed by some imperialist power (i.e. the UK, through its possession of Afghanistan) or follow the path of independence. Whatever would be left of Russia, it would quickly vanish in the WWII, as it would be essentially a backward agrarian nation without the means to defend itself from Germany, a la Romania.
In comparison with the desperate situation the Bolshevik found themselves into, where Russia ceased to exist for a moment, everything they grew up destroyed, see the situation the Wokists live into. Yes, the American Empire is declining, but its declining very slowly. The Americans have more than enough time and resources to reform themselves relatively peacefully (as not external enemy threatens it). The situation is not ideal, but is far from near-extinction, as was Russia in 1914-1917. There’s no threat of territorial disintegration in the USA right now. And what the wokists are proposing in this situation? Secession between the blue and red states, independence for the entire West Coast, indefinite printing of USDs, use of force against Russia and China (both of which are nuclear powers). The wokists, out of a relatively tranquil conjecture, only want destruction, while the Bolsheviks did the polar opposite – they saved Russia from extinction through balkanization.
Posted by: vk | Oct 23 2021 1:49 utc | 64
In response to vk@64,73
Sure, he’s making a political – not a scientific – speech. But, even by political standards, he sets a very dangerous precedent, because he’s essentially calling for the American elites to crush the Wokists because they represent some kind of risk of an American version of the Bolshevik Revolution – a risk that doesn’t exist.
This is a very difficult train of thought for me to understand. Which American political forces do you believe he’s calling on to crush the Wokists? Why, if the Wokists don’t have influence on or represent any sort of threat to the American establishment, is it a dangerous precedent to call for their suppression? Could you describe the dangerous scenario(s) that you’re envisioning to come out of a worst-case interpretation of Putin’s words?
I would sincerely be interested to have access to what it is you think you see behind the curtain, because my own interpretation is very dull. All I see is a moderate, appealing to common sense, illustrating his views with historical parallels. I don’t believe he’s tailoring his words for the benefit of any particular elites, least of all the American ruling class, which in my view are the real progenitors of the Woke movement. At the very least, they are too caught up in lip-servicing Wokist dogma to pay attention to any dissent on the matter. Naturally, as one would expect from a moderate appealing to common sense, the words have broad public mass-appeal across a variety of different political inclinations, provided they have a centrist component, and seem to have ruffled the feathers of those that don’t.
There’s no dire prediction of a Woke revolution that I can make out, but several well illustrated examples of the infringement on personal freedoms and traditional institutions that can be expected from submitting to aggressive dogmatism.
Correction: those who actually lived the Soviet experience who are in the internet and speak and write in English. Probably the Russian middle class, the ones (relatively few) who benefited from the fall of the USSR.
Most middle class Russians who mention the fall of the USSR as positive say that it was so because they were able to travel abroad and have access to the consumer goods and culture of the West. That is, the only good thing of the Russian Federation is the fact that you may get out of it (literally or just culturally).
This is insulting on so many levels.
How many English-speaking Russians do you think there are on the internet? Obviously, most of us live in mud-huts and throw rocks at one another for communication, but “supposedly” we’re the 8’th largest Internet population, with a level of English proficiency comparable to France or Mexico.
Do you actually believe that the Russian middle class were the ones to benefit from the fall of USSR? And why, because they could finally pack up and leave the country and buy “Western goods?” Is this your idea of “finding the truth” before speaking? Because to me, it sounds like tactless chauvinism.
Finally, I never claimed that the fall of USSR was a positive. Like the majority of Russians back in the 90’s and, I believe, still to this day, I consider it a tragedy. That doesn’t mean it was a perfect society, that its obvious authoritarian tendencies were some capitalist propaganda — by the 50’s and 60’s it had grown into a very compassionate social order that many remember fondly, but the same people will just as readily recount the various contradictions and taboos that they took for granted most of their life, the hoops they had to jump through to accomplish some mundane task, or close shaves with authorities over nothing-burgers.
There’s nothing controversial about that, unless you have some agenda. The liberal opposition in Russia exclusively talks about the negative side of the coin, which is why they’re uniformly considered political hacks. The communists, generally, admit to overreach and stupidity of certain policies, but primarily focus on the positives — that extra bit of flexibility in thinking is, in my opinion, what nets them the public support that they have.
Anyways, thanks for calling my country a shithole. I don’t get nearly enough of that from Western liberals and East European fascists, it’s nice to see hardcore leftists pitching in their support.
Posted by: Skiffer | Oct 23 2021 13:36 utc | 82
@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 23 2021 5:55 utc | 77
This is not “Marx’s plan”, but how History works. The USA was, from the very beginning, the most Anti-Marxist country on Earth. To blame Marx for all of its problems is ridiculous.
Irony here is that, when Christianity rose, the Roman Empire blamed it for its problems, accusing it of being what we would call today “cultural degeneration”.
The virtuous or today were the degenerates of yesterday – that’s why we don’t use culture, religion or art as a metric of societal development.
–//–
@ Posted by: Merovech | Oct 23 2021 8:56 utc | 81
Putin, when talking about women’s rights during the early Bolshevik era, is clearly referring to Vera Kollontai, who basically wrote everything about the subject basically alone. Her work is exhaustive and is, to this day, the foundation (alongside Engels’ famous work “Origins…”) of Marxist Feminism.
Her work is not “hipster”, and is very progressive even by today’s standards. It essentially envisioned a universal system of creches and canteens in order to free up feminine labor power from unproductive house chores and put them to work in industry and elsewhere. The extinction of the institution of family was necessary because private property was abolished (therefore no inheritance), not because the Bolsheviks wanted to organize orgies. Family was abolished as a specific juridical institution, not as the abstraction of human biological reproduction. Divorce was immediately legalized, but the peasantry blocked it, and it remained mainly an urban phenomenon.
(Arranged) Marriage is an essential institution for the peasant lifestyle, because demographic density is low (the estates are large) and both man and women spend the whole day cultivating their land, therefore with little time to socialize. That’s why it was kept well into the Bolshevik era.
Kollontai – and everybody else – knew from the very beginning their plan for women’s rights was utopian at the time. They didn’t even have the funds to keep the orphanages (the Civil War left a lot of orphans, and the socialist system forbid adoption of children because they were inevitably used as slave labor by the peasants), let alone creches; they didn’t have enough food to feed even the urban proletariat, let alone build a complete system of public canteens. But the thing is that the Bolsheviks didn’t use the bourgeois concept of Rule of Law – in the socialist system, the law is merely a guide for organization and mobilization, not necessarily as an obligatory order that people must obey at all costs. Also, the Bolsheviks in this era adopted the concept of “aiming for the stars to reach the Moon”, i.e. they knew much of what they said and codified was not feasible at the time (the 1920s), but they did so anyway because either they thought it would inspire the future generations, or it would serve as a prescription for the long term, or a mix of both. That’s why there are a lot of “dead letters” in the earlier Soviet Constitutions.
The evidence that much of this women’s rights, culture reforms that popped up in the 1920s were either utopian or not urgent can be found in Lenin’s works: he barely touched the subject in his lifetime. Of the bigwig Bolsheviks, only Trotsky, sometimes, talked about literature – but only because he was responsible for the Youth sector for some time and because he probably liked the subject personally. Even in literature, the debate happened almost entirely to the writers themselves, the Party only intervening when it got ugly (and even then only by the lower level members of the Party and Lunacharsky, because it was his job).
The area of culture and arts was a “free for all” field during the 1920s and even the beginning of the 1930s. It was only during the Stalinist era that it became planned (therefore when censorship really begun) – which is ironic, because then the anachronism of “cancel culture” should be applied to Stalin and not to Lenin.
–//–
@ Posted by: snake | Oct 23 2021 4:35 utc | 74
So, you think the Bolsheviks should fund propaganda against themselves? Sounds like “cuckery” to me, which is a Wokist thing…
What’s your opinion about Christian propaganda, then?
It is impossible to assert the effectiveness of propaganda. Even is we could, the Bolsheviks only had any kind of insertion in the cities, but the vast majority of the Russian population was peasant – where propaganda had no effect.
What earned the Bolsheviks hegemony in Russia was military power, land reform and removal of Russia from WWI (which saved many peasant lives). The peasants fought for the Red Army against the White Army to defend their recently earned piece of land, not because they saw some random poster on a wall.
And what makes you think chaos always result in a new hegemony from the Left? As far as I’m concerned, the far-right is much stronger in the USA, having taken over a major party (the Republican Party) and elected a POTUS (Donald Trump – who has chances of coming back in 2024). Chaos in Germany resulted in the rise of the Nazis, which were right-wing. The American left have what? Bernie Sanders (who cannot even take over the Democratic Party) and some three or four Senators/Congressmen. I would say the USA is much closer to becoming a Fascist Dictatorship than a Proletarian Dictatorship – and the fact that the American commentariat in this blog is much more worried with the Woke than with the Alt-Right may be a symptom of this.
Posted by: vk | Oct 23 2021 14:02 utc | 83
|
