Connect with us

Latest

America

Culture

Americans constantly portray Russia as the enemy, but what do Russians do?

Russian people do not obsess about America at all now, nor did they while Russia was part of the Soviet Union.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

1,299 Views

Americans are immersed in a culture that is steeped with war dramas. If there is not a real war to depict, it is common to create a drama from a “what if?” style of fantasy. In that regard, American cinema is well-supplied with movies about Russia, the Soviet Union, the Cold War and possible alternate histories.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

Do these titles look familiar?

  • The Hunt for Red October
  • Bridge of Spies
  • Thirteen Days
  • Rocky IV
  • Crimson Tide
  • The Day After
  • Red Dawn (1984)
  • WarGames
  • Rambo
  • Threads
  • Dr Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

A similar sense exists in the American literary scene, with books like Red Storm Rising, 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, Cardinal of the Kremlin, Invader, Alas Babylon, On the Beach, Lord of the Flies, and many, many others. All of these books, some of them not American, but still Western, infuse the Western culture with one main basic idea:

Communism is an enemy ideology. Russia is / was the world’s largest and most powerful Communist nation. Therefore, Russia is an enemy of the West, and regardless of any different developments in history, Russia is not to be trusted.

Taken in this context, Russiagate and its associated controversies and sanctions are not anything new for the United States, because Russia has “never been trustworthy” and so this is “how we deal with these untrustworthy people.”

The news rhetoric has been almost 100% unanimous on this point, and American political figures appear to be either lost in the belief that this is true, or afraid to give any rebuttal or correction to it. All except Senator Rand Paul and President Donald Trump at this point.

But what about in Russia? Do the Russian people feel the same way about the Americans? Was there such a framework for literature and cinema in the Russian culture both in the Soviet times and since? This is a point whose answer is somewhat elusive to many Westerners, because one of the primary characteristics of Russian life is that the people read and speak Russian. Russian is a language that is difficult to “fit in” to anything commonly understood among Westerners. The letters are different, and the language often sounds to Americans like the Russian is speaking backwards. We can identify the language by its sound but, aside from words like “Da” and “Nyet” (Да, нет), most Americans have no idea what is going on when a Russian speaks.

However, some experience in Russia and discussions and pseudo-interviews on this topic reveal some surprising facts:

  • During the Cold War, Russians did not consider the Americans or the West to be a threat. Indeed, the response from Russian people who are now about fifty years old is pretty consistent. Russian citizenry did not consider the threat of nuclear war with the West.
  • Russian movie and literary themes rarely concerned themselves with Communism. From the period of the 1960’s until the end of the Cold War at least, this was true. Communism was an established fact of life, but it was not common to find real communist ideologues. The image of “Party Orthodoxy” that was portrayed in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was a rare occurrence. Party membership advanced economic opportunity, so it was a calculated move for many in the Soviet Union or its satellite countries to be loyal Party Members. But that is usually about as far as things went.
  • Russian movies almost never focused on the ideology of Communism. Some classic movies in Russia during some of the most stressful moments during the Cold War were movies like “The Irony of Fate / Enjoy Your Bath! (Ирония судьбы, или С лёгким паром!)“, a romantic comedy poking fun at the rigidly planned cities under Communism; “Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears (Москва слезам не верит)“, a 1981 Academy-Award winner in the Foreign Film category, which was a profoundly deep life-story drama film. Other movies included moral comedies, such as “Sweet Woman (Сладкая женщина)” that delivered a funny and tragic message about the error of materialism. These movies and others evoked almost no references to the Communist style of government in place. In fact, the stories in all these movies take place at “ground level” – in the area of exploring personal and funny themes. IMDB’s website carries this list of the fifty best Soviet Era films. Of this group, only one film is about the October 1917 Revolution, “October: Ten Days that Shook the World”, and only one other film “The Sacrifice” made in 1986 by Andrei Tarnovsky as an expatriate from the Soviet Union, refers to World War III. Most movies on this list are dramas, comedies, a little bit of science fiction and war movies about WWII / The Great Patriotic War and World War I.
  • After the Cold War, Russian people got more interested in America and the West, but generally they preferred their own country, and still do to this day. A commonly held view in America includes the story of the Russian Bride who comes to America to escape the horrible conditions in her own country. This is simply not the case. While it is true that life in many small villages in Russia is in often quite primitive conditions, this is not always so. Further life in the large cities, where most Russian people live, is quite modern. It is not as uniformly luxurious as the expanse of the US, but it is far from desperate. Life in Moscow, Samara, St Petersburg, Irkutsk, Saratov, Sochi – all these and other places have most or all the creature comforts of the West, at lower prices and one is not required to leave the country to have a good life. However, it is also true that many Russians are quite curious about the West, and they come and many of them stay. But the fable of the greedy Russian woman who marries to use men for their money is mostly the result of a few bad actors.

This can be examined in two significant ways, though there are certainly other points of view. One would be to maintain that the reason there were no movies made about Communism was because the Communist government forbade it. This is a point of view that is popularly held in the West, and was especially expressed during the height of the Cold War during the 1970’s.

Another point of view is to note that the Soviet Union after the 1950’s was in a modification stage anyway. The glory of the Revolution was old and faded away, and most people were concerned with living daily lives. The victory of Communism was not as important as dinner for the family.

The causes for the differences between Russian and American viewpoints are debatable without end. But the result is very interesting as it bears on current times. In the majority, Russian people fear and despise war. They do not have any desire to invade other nations, though they support their military actions, and they have no desire for war with the West. President Vladimir Putin has maintained this point of view publicly on countless occasions.

The Russian social mindset is collective. Not just “collective” like in “collective farms” under Communism, but rather a principle known as:

Sobornost (Russian: Собо́рность, IPA: [sɐˈbornəstʲ] “Spiritual community of many jointly living people”)[1] is a term coined by the early Slavophiles, Ivan Kireyevsky and Aleksey Khomyakov, to underline the need for co-operation between people, at the expense of individualism, on the basis that the opposing groups focus on what is common between them.

The character in people that sobornost develops is that Russian people pretty much love Russia. They are interested in the welfare of the country, and they know the country’s success is their success. It is not very common to think of one’s own life as completely independent of the needs of others for Russians. This certainly developed through 1,000 years of Orthodox Christianity, which embraces the same view.

It also makes it less important for there to be an “enemy” to fight. 

The combination of rugged individualism and great prosperity in the United States may be two factors that create the need for an enemy to exist so that we have something to oppose and defeat. This is a topic worthy of further exploration in the future.

The Russian people’s reaction to the actions of the West, particularly the United States and England in recent years, has been a mixture of frustration and sadness. But it is also infused with faith, especially among the Orthodox Christians of the country. They know that when the Church is despised, the nation fails. They know this from experience, and they also know that as long as Russia remains true to the Church and its Lord, nothing will defeat it.

The frustration over the West is akin to the feelings a parent might have as they watch their teenaged son or daughter destroy themselves with drug-use and riotous living. They cannot stop it, but it is very sad to watch. More to come…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
8 Comments

8
Leave a Reply

avatar
8 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Valeria NollantomtiredofthemedialiesAdrengSeán Murphy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Valeria Nollan
Guest
Valeria Nollan

Excellent analysis. It will surprise many in the West that this part of the world is not the center of the universe for Russians (as I have written elsewhere). Russians deeply love their language, culture, and country. Many whom I know are saddened at the ways in which the West is destroying itself, while Russia keeps making improvements in the quality of life of its people and its national security. It was the West that invaded and brutalized Russia twice in the 20th century. If the West isn’t careful, it will become mostly irrelevant to Russia.

tom
Guest
tom

Brave New World, Animal Farm and On The Beach have absolutely nothing to do with Russia, the USSR or communism. Let’s not go overboard in our desperation to throw together a grab-bag of titles.

tiredofthemedialies
Guest
tiredofthemedialies

“The frustration over the West is akin to the feelings a parent might have as they watch their teenaged son or daughter destroy themselves with drug-use and riotous living.” what a silly article and above statement. The united snakes is diametrically opposed to anything Russian, and seeks to demonise, destabilise and then invade. (and both military-industrial complexes profit from this) Don’t the Russian folks know about the 26 or so united snakes bases which surround the Rodina, or the very many united snakes-funded chemical and biological weapons establishments ?? (Seven built in Banderastan in only 12 months) Gosh! I wonder… Read more »

Seán Murphy
Guest
Seán Murphy

How is Lord of the Flies either communist or anti Russian? Has the author of this article actually read any of the books he lists?

Adreng
Guest
Adreng

I agree that there are not many Soviet and Russian films with the United States as an enemy. This does not mean, however, that there are no films about wars against enemies. WWII (the Great Patriotic War) is a recurrent topic both in Soviet and post-Soviet times – the percentage of films about WWII is probably much higher in Russia than in Western countries. But these films have a different function. While Holliwood’s enemies are often matched to the ideological needs of the day, Soviet and Russian cinema dealt with the Nazis more often. These films about WWII do not… Read more »

slavko
Guest
slavko

Interesting question that THE Durak poses here “… but what do the Russians do?”

For starters, the Russians invade the neighbors. And that’s a biggie.

Kenny Lee
Guest
Kenny Lee

A country whose society embraces traditional Christian moral values is blessed.

Nexusfast123
Guest
Nexusfast123

America is like a petulant child that has never grown up. After WW2 the US had everything – control of most of the worlds technologies and markets, trusted custodian of the world’s financial system, etc. They have this strange obsession with being warriors. Amusingly they are not particularly good at that and unlike other nations they have not experienced mass death and privation. They have pissed it all away to a point where the US will collapse economically or be turned into ash.

Latest

BBC producer admits Douma attack was false flag that nearly sparked Russia – U.S. hot war (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 176.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

BBC producer Riam Dalati believes that the scenes caught on video from a hospital in Douma, Syria were staged, all in an effort driven by jihadist terrorists and White Helmet “activists” to draw the U.S. and its allies into full on confrontation with Syria, and by extension Russia.

The viral images caused a media firestorm in 2018, showing children allegedly suffering from chemicals, as main stream media channels, like the BBC itself, called for war with Assad.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the BBC producer’s stunning admission, after a 6 month investigation, that reveals the “‘chemical attack” hospital scenes in Douma were completely staged.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


Emotive scenes of Syrian civilians, among them crying, choking, half-naked children, dominated the airwaves in April last year after rebel-affiliated mouthpieces reported yet another “chemical attack by the Assad regime” in the town of Douma. Disturbing reports, including some from the controversial White Helmets, claimed scores of people had been killed and injured.

Mainstream media quickly picked up the horrific (but unverified) videos from a Douma hospital, where victims were treated after this “poison attack.” That hospital scene was enough to assemble a UN emergency session and prompt the US-led ‘coalition of the willing’ to rain down dozens of missiles on Damascus and other locations.

But Riam Dalati, a reputable BBC producer who has long reported from the Middle East, took the liberty of trying to sift through the fog of the Syrian war.

He believes Assad forces did attack the town, but that the much-publicized hospital scenes were staged.

After almost 6 months of investigations, I can prove without a doubt that the Douma Hospital scene was staged. No fatalities occurred in the hospital.

Anticipating further queries, he said no one from the White Helmets or opposition sources were present in Douma by the time the alleged attack had happened except for one person who was in Damascus.

Dalati also says that an attack “did happen” but that sarin, a weapons-grade nerve agent, was not used. He said, “we’ll have to wait for OPCW [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] to prove chlorine or otherwise.”

However, everything else around the attack was manufactured for maximum effect.

The journalist said Jaysh al-Islam, an Islamist faction that fought the Syrian army there, “ruled Douma with an iron fist. They co-opted activists, doctors and humanitarians with fear and intimidation.”

Dalati’s revelations could have become a bombshell news report, but instead it was met with a deafening media silence. His employer preferred to distance itself from his findings. The BBC told Sputnik in a statement that Dalati was expressing “his personal opinions about some of the video footage that emerged after the attack but has not claimed that the attack did not happen.” 

After a while, Dalati restricted access to his Twitter account which is now open only to confirmed followers.

Interestingly, his previous inputs did not sit well with the official narrative either. “Sick and tired of activists and rebels using corpses of dead children to stage emotive scenes for Western consumption. Then they wonder why some serious journos are questioning part of the narrative,” he said in a tweet which he later deleted over “the breach of editorial policy.”

In all, Dalati is not a lone voice in the wilderness. The Intercept has recently run a story that also cast doubt on the mainstream coverage of Douma, although it doesn’t doubt that the attack itself happened. While a veteran British reporter Robert Fisk suggested there was no gas attack at all, saying people there were suffering from oxygen starvation. Witnesses of the “chemical attack,” for their part, told international investigators the story was a set-up.

Moscow, which supports Damascus in its fight against terrorists, has long stated the Douma incident was staged, calling for an international OPCW inquiry. Last year, the Defense Ministry presented what it said was proof the “provocation” was to trigger Western airstrikes against Syrian government forces.

This time, the military recalled a similar 2017 incident in Khan Sheikhoun, where an alleged chemical attack took place. The ministry’s spokesman Igor Konashenkov said on Friday that a closer inspection of footage from that location clearly shows this was a set-up as well.

Now the Foreign Ministry has suggested Dalati is being silenced for voicing inconvenient views, with spokeswoman Maria Zakharova asking on Facebook: “A telling story. How about Western advocates of rights and freedoms? Had they accused BBC of censorship and pressuring the journalist?”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

President Trump schools liberals with National Emergency declaration

President Trump skillfully defeats Democrat naysayers, by increasing support for the border wall prior to declaring a National Emergency.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

President Trump signed a continuing resolution to keep the US government fully running through the rest of the 2019 fiscal year. The CR contained a $1.374 bn allocation for US border security, and that money includes and pays for the completion of some fifty-five miles of border fence (or wall, or barrier, or “not-a-wall” depending on one’s preferential phrasing.) He also declared a National Emergency, theoretically freeing at least another $8 bn for the continued construction of the border wall.

Yes, it is a wall. And, yes, it is being built right now. And yes, it will be completed. The President of the United States has made this abundantly clear.

Some news reporters talk about this matter still as though there is in fact no wall now, and that there is no construction in progress on any wall. To that we can say, please watch this:

This section of the wall is going up near Santa Teresa, New Mexico. It augments a very well-designed 18 foot wall stretching from west of Santa Teresa, NM to Tornillo, Texas. If someone wants to cross the border without having to negotiate this barrier they have to go very far off the beaten path to do it. President Trump wants to make it even more difficult; in fact, he wants to have the barrier run the entire length of the US-Mexico border.

This second video says a bit more about the situation:

His campaign to get this has been brilliant in terms of getting the American people informed that there is a problem. How did he do this with a press that hates him?

Easy. He made an issue out of it, knowing that the news media has no choice but to cover the President’s every antic, and in so doing, while seeking fodder for criticism, they actually ended up reporting on the actual problem.

This has been an interesting flow of events:

  • Mainstream news slamming the President’s every statement about the need for a wall
  • The fury of Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Charles “Chuck” Schumer in their 100% opposition – their own temper tantrum whilst blaming that tantrum on Trump, who actually acted more like a strict parent than a bratty teenager
  • The very public presentations of Border Patrol experts that Trump arranged, the purpose being to listen to their own expert assessment of the actual needs at the border

This last issue marks a need for even the conservative press to have a wake-up call. Daniel Horowitz wrote a piece in The Conservative Review excoriating President Trump’s signing of this present deal as a “sell out”, noting that:

Trump originally demanded $25 billion for the wall. Then he negotiated himself down to $5.6 billion. Democrats balked and only agreed to $1.6 billion. This bill calls it a day at $1.375 billion, enough to construct 55 miles. But it’s worse than that. This bill limits the president’s ability to construct “barriers” to just the Rio Grande Valley sector and only bollard fencing, not concrete walls of any kind.

Daniel’s point is great for rhetoric because, of course, the President originally did promise a big beautiful concrete wall running the entire length of the border.

However, he missed the point about using bollard-style walls that can be seen through – the Border Patrol agents themselves said this kind of wall is to their advantage. A solid wall prevents natural visibility and the agents were getting rocks thrown at them from people they could not see on the other side. A see-through capability means that people approaching the wall on the other side can be seen and tracked.

This marks an example of conservative ideology being too strongly fixed, just as the liberals’ ideology is fixed at the level of a four-year old child refusing to let someone else play with his toys.

They both do not understand that President Trump is not concerned with ideology. He is concerned with useful results, which he got in this deal.

Now about that National Emergency. Is this really the constitutional crisis Trump’s detractors say it is?

Probably not.

It has been widely reported that the US is currently running under some 31 other national emergencies, and that the one President Trump declared makes it number 32. The rhetoric from the news media and Democrats is centered around the idea that no President has ever used this power to get money that only the Congress can allot.

We also probably already know that this is an irrelevant point – the President is in charge of the national security of the nation, and he can and must do what he can to ensure it. The huge numbers of illegal crossings, nearly half a million in 2018 were largely apprehended and released into the United States, rather than deported. Half a million is far less than the 1.6 million that came through in 2000, but it is also not zero. Half a million is the size of the city of Atlanta, Georgia.

The distractors in the Democrat party and media do not want anyone comprehending this fact, so they try to divert and dissuade. But President Trump has not let any of this get past him. In a media event, the President had parents and relatives of people who were murdered by illegal aliens in a direct face-off with none other than CNN’s provocateur-in-chief Jim Acosta, and the reporter was forced to listen to what these family members had to say about their convictions that the president was correct in his:

Trump pointed to angel moms in attendance, asking them for their thoughts.

“You think I’m creating something? Ask these incredible women who lost their daughters and their sons,” Trump said. “OK, Because your question is a very political question because you have an agenda. You’re CNN. You’re fake news.”

Trump told Acosta the statistics he provided were “wrong” and told him to take a look at the federal prison population for proof.

“See how many of them,percentage-wise, are illegal aliens,” Trump said. “Just see, go ahead and see. It’s a fake question.”

Acosta was subsequently confronted by the angel moms in attendance, after the press conference. As angel moms confronted the CNN reporter, he invited them to appear on the network in the background of a live shot.

“There is no attempt whatsoever to diminish what they’ve gone through, or take away what they’ve gone through, but as you heard in that question that I had with the president … it was really about the facts and the data,” Acosta said on CNN following his exchange with Trump. “Some of these folks came up to me right after this press conference … they’re holding up these pictures of loved ones who lost their lives.”

An angel mom then discussed that a previously deported illegal alien murdered her son.

“President Trump is completely correct on this issue, we need to protect this country,” the angel mom told Acosta.

Acosta actually was a victim of his own passions when he went to the border to a place where the bollard wall presently stands and reported that nothing was happening there. It seemed that he was expecting that there were supposed to be angry mobs on the other side trying to get through. However, no one was there, because it is rather pointless to try to get over this wall at this place. Even liberals were forced to acknowledge Mr. Acosta’s strategic miscalculation.

The new national emergency is about getting results. If we were concerned only with smooth and impressive politics, we could only remark on the President’s success in maneuvering the Democrats (not all of them were slavishly going with the Pelosi-Schumer stance) and his ability to do what he does best – getting his message to the American people, and giving them information with which to decide what they want.

This campaign is not over, but this particular battle appears to have been won with a lot of hard work.

Slowly, oh, so slowly, it would seem that the forces of common sense are making some headway in America.

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“This is America” reveals a shocking vision of the United States

The Grammy Award winning Song and Record of the Year feature the very darkest vision of what America has become.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The Grammy Awards are the second of the three most significant musical achievement awards in the United States. Two of the anticipated awards that many fans of this event look forward to learning are the Song of the Year and the Record of the Year.

The Song of the Year is awarded to the songwriters of a given song, where the Record of the Year goes to the artists, producers and engineers involved in crafting the recording (the “record”) of a song. Both categories are huge and both usually go to an artist or organization responsible for a pop song.

It also happens to be that usually the song that is picked is beautiful and in most cases, reflects the character of beauty (whether in music or lyrics or both) for that year.

This year was quite different. Both awards went to Donald Glover, a.k.a. “Childish Gambino” for his song This is America.

This song features a radically different tone than previous winners going back for many years. Though rap remixes are usually less musical, the Grammy winners among these mixes have nevertheless retained some relatively positive, or at least attractive, aspect.

This is America is very different, especially when watched with its video.

Musically, it is genius, though the genius appears to have gone mad. Glover paints a picture of some very positive segments in American life, but then destroys it with his audible form and message that says absolutely nothing positive, but even more so – it doesn’t make sense unless one knows the context.

That context is revealed in the video with frightening images: someone getting their brains blown out (we see the blood fly), a gospel choir shot up with an automatic rifle while they were singing, and cannabis, front and center, being smoked by the artist himself.

This is America?

For Glover, this song and others on his album do seem to reflect that point of view.  Feels like Summer, one of Glover’s other recent songs, also reflects this sense of hopelessness, though it is far more musically consistent. The video gives the most clear contextual information that one could ask for, and while the video is not violent, it features degradation in society, even though the people depicted appear to be trying to make the best of their life situations.

The image Mr. Glover paints of America is a far cry from that which was known to most Americans only twenty years ago, and in fact, in many parts of the country where cannabis is still illegal there is a corresponding sense of positivity in life that is absent in Childish Gambino’s California-esque view of life.

There is a massive change that is taking place in American society. Our music and art reflects this change, and it sometimes even helps drive that change.

The United States of today is at a crossroads.

How many times have we read or heard THAT statement before?  But does it not seem so now? The attempt of identity politics to separate our nation into groups that must somehow fight for their own relevance against other groups is not the vision of the United States only twenty years ago.

Further, the normalization of themes such as drug-use and racism, the perpetuation of one in reality and the other as a mythological representation of how life “really is” in the US is radically bizarre.

In discussions with people who do not live in the United States, we found that sometimes they believed that white-on-black racism really was happening in America, because the media in the US pumps this information out in a constant stream, often with people like Donald Trump as the scapegoat.

But it is not true. Anyone in America’s new “accused class” of white, Christian, European-descent males (and some women who are not feminists), will note that they are not racist, and in fact, they feel persecuted for their existence under the new mantra of “white privilege.”

But it does not matter what they say. The media pumps the message it wants to, and with such coverage it is easy to get to halfway believing it: I know I am not this way, but I guess things are getting pretty bad elsewhere because all of those people seem to be getting this way…

This is the narrative the press promulgates, but upon conversations with people in “those places” we find that it is not true for them, either, and that they may in fact be thinking this is true about us.

Made in America is a visionary song and video. However, the vision is not a dream; it is nothing that anyone in the country would sincerely hope for. Even in Donald Glover’s case – as one of Hollywood’s hottest actors, and as a big success in music, he is far from being one of the “boys in the ‘hood.” In fact, Time Magazine in 2017 named him one of the world’s 100 most influential people.

Certainly his musical work creates a powerful influence, but it also must raise questions, with the main ones being:

  • Are we really like this?
  • Is this what we really want to be as a country?
  • Is this the kind of image we want our children in the US to adopt?

In fact, if Mr. Glover’s work was viewed with care (rather than just as something that is “cool” because the media says it is), it might help us steer away from the cliff that many Americans are in fact heading towards.

We have elected not to link to the video because it is too disturbing for children. It is even too disturbing for many adults. For that reason we are not making it one-click-easy to get to.

Parents reading this opinion piece would do well to screen the video by themselves without the kids around first, before deciding what they want to do. Even though the video is probably something that they have already seen, the parents still stand as the guides and guardians for their children through all the perils of growing up.

These times call for great guardians indeed.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending