HIGHLY POTENT NEWS THAT MIGHT CHANGE YOUR VIEWS

censorship

VIDEO — Ted L Gunderson Ex FBI Whistleblower Poisoned? – Dr.Ed Lucidi

AirCrap.org
Sept 29, 2014

Uploaded on Dec 3, 2011

Anthony Hilder Anthony Hilder

Former head of FBI Los Angeles, Memphis, Dallas, poisoned with Arsenic says Dr Ed Lucidi who saw the body and treated Mr Gunderson who suffered bladder cancer and died as a result of its spread. Reportedly Mr Gunderson had a very large FBI dossier being a whistleblower against the agency and left out of moral considerations. He spoke to many around the country about his first hand information..


9 Epic Failures of Regulating Cryptography

Activist Post
Sept 27, 2014

Recently Apple has announced that it is providing basic encryption on mobile devices that they cannot bypass, even in response to a request from law enforcement. Google has promised to take similar steps in the near future. Predictably, law enforcement has responded with howls of alarm .

We’ve seen this movie before. Below is a slightly adapted blog post from one we posted in 2010, the last time the FBI was seriously hinting that it was going to try to mandate that all communications systems be easily wiretappable by mandating “back doors” into any encryption systems. We marshaled eight “epic failures” of regulating crypto at that time, all of which are still salient today. And in honor of the current debate, we’ve added a ninth.

They can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain text. – FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni, September 27, 2010

[W]e’re in favor of strong encryption, robust encryption. The country needs it, industry needs it. We just want to make sure we have a trap door and key under some judge’s authority where we can get there if somebody is planning a crime. – FBI Director Louis Freeh, May 11, 1995

If the government howls of protest at the idea that people will be using encryption sound familiar, it’s because regulating and controlling consumer use of encryption was a monstrous proposal officially declared dead in 2001 after threatening Americans’ privacy, free speech rights, and innovation for nearly a decade. But like a zombie, it’s now rising from the grave, bringing the same disastrous flaws with it.


Beware: Facebook’s “Soft Censorship”

Land Destroyer

SoftCensorshipSeptember 5, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – LocalOrg) – The Land Destroyer Report maintained a Facebook page under the name Anthony Cartalucci. Since 2009 it was used to express my personal thoughts regarding the news of the day, as well as share relevant links with followers. Today, Facebook, without warning or opportunity to appeal, decided that the Facebook account must be changed over to a “page.” By doing so, all those following my account no longer would receive updates, because of Facebook’s “news feed” filters.

The premise behind news feed filters is that people have too many “friends” and are following too many accounts, so they can’t possibly manage all the content themselves. Therefore, Facebook will do it for them. We already know about the Facebook “experiment” where they intentionally manipulated the news feed of hundreds of thousands of Facebook users without their consent.

A report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) titled, “Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks,” stated in its abstract that:

We show, via a massive (N = 689,003) experiment on Facebook, that emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness. We provide experimental evidence that emotional contagion occurs without direct interaction between people (exposure to a friend expressing an emotion is sufficient), and in the complete absence of nonverbal cues.Not only are the findings troubling – illustrating that Facebook possesses the ability to influence the emotions of its users unwittingly through careful manipulation of their news feeds – but the invasive, unethical methods by which Facebook conducted the experiment are troubling as well.

Clearly manipulating users’ news feeds possesses powerful propaganda and mass-manipulative influence – surely influence those with the resources would be willing to pay for. And that is exactly what Facebook has arranged for with their new “reach” system. Facebook’s own explanation is as follows:

Rather than showing people all possible content, News Feed is designed to show each person on Facebook the content that’s most relevant to them. Of the 1,500+ stories a person might see whenever they log onto Facebook, News Feed displays approximately 300. To choose which stories to show, News Feed ranks each possible story (from more to less important) by looking at thousands of factors relative to each person.

Those involuntarily forced to switch from standard accounts over to “pages” will notice the “boost” feature below each post. This is where you are required to pay Facebook money to ensure people who voluntarily followed you to receive content from you, actually receive it. Obviously, this confers a major advantage to well-funded start-ups, established media outlets, and large, corporate-driven propaganda machines. For the independent or freelance journalist, analyst, or activist, Facebook has gone from an open platform to a cage of soft censorship.

[...CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE]


“Conspiracy Theory”: Foundations of a Weaponized Term

by James F. Tracy
Global Research
Jan 22, 2013

“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.

This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by Florida State University political scientist Lance de-Haven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. de-Haven-Smith devised the  state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11.

“CIA Document 1035-960” was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”

The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”

The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

[...CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE]


Russia to ban Bitcoin by next spring

Red Ice Creations
Sept 19, 2014

From: coinreport.net

RT, an English-language news outlet in Russia, reports that a top official with the Russian government has announced that a law will be passed banning Bitcoin’s exchange into real money by next spring because of Bitcoin’s use by criminals and terrorists.

Deputy Finance Minister Aleksey Moiseev said to journalists in Moscow:

“People can play with their chips, and they can call them money, but they can’t use these surrogate currencies as tender. We will discuss this law in the current session of parliament, and possibly even pass it then, or at the very latest by spring next year. We are currently dealing with comments from the law enforcement agencies, about the specifics of legal measures, and we will take their remarks into account. But the overall concept of the law is set in stone.”
While the draft of the proposed legislation has not been published, officials state they will open criminal proceedings against people who mint digital currency as well as those who use it for transactions. Russia’s financial ministry has also asked regulators to ban access to exchanges and online shops that accept Bitcoin, reports RT.

[...CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE]


Bangladesh Central Bank: Cryptocurrency Use is a ‘Punishable Offense’

CoinDesk
Sept 16, 2014

Update (17th September 3:00 BST): A full translation of the statement from the Bangladesh Bank has been added to the piece.


BangladeshThe central bank of Bangladesh has issued a new statement suggesting that the use of digital currency is now illegal in the country.

The Bangladesh Bank, as originally reported by the Agence France-Presse (AFP), has said that the use of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is unlawful under existing anti-money laundering (AML) statutes.

The Bangladesh Bank noted in its advisory that harsh penalties could be imposed on those who use digital currencies, saying:

“Bitcoin is not a legal tender of any country. Any transaction through bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency is a punishable offense.”

AFP also reportedly spoke to a representative from the bank, who said that the act of using a digital currency could be punishable by as much as 12 years in prison.

Bangladesh recently enacted Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012, a revision of a 2009 law that aimed to bring the country’s AML policies up to global standards.

Popularity leads to announcement

Notably, the bank’s decision to outlaw digital currency transactions derived from increasing reports in the local media regarding the use of bitcoin by domestic residents.

[...CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE]


Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta issues fatwa against male-female online chatting

nsnbc international
Aug 31, 2014

Aya Samir (TCP) : Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta, a semi-governmental religious body responsible for issuing fatwas, said Saturday that chatting between male and female strangers on the internet is prohibited unless it is extremely necessary.

Answering an FAQ about religious rules on chatting on Dar al-Ifta’s official website, it said it was prohibited as it will “open the doors of evil, sedition and corruption.”

Dar al-Ifta_Egypt_TCPDar al-Ifta added in its fatwa that it is acceptable only in extremely necessary situations, “especially nowadays as these kinds of interactions are a waste of time with no benefit.”

The fatwa added that women should not be sending photos of themselves to strangers they don’t know in order to preserve their dignity, as “criminals have used photos of women strangers in bad, harmful ways.”

Amna Noser, a member of the National Council for Women and a professor of religion and philosophy at Al-Azhar University, told Youm7 Saturday that if the conversation was for something useful, then it is fine, “but saying that chatting in general is ‘haram’ (forbidden) is not really realistic, especially as social media has become a huge part of our life and can’t be denied.”

She explained that the reason for this fatwa, according to her point of view, is that “lately social media has become one of the methods that could be used to make girls sound like easy prey for anyone with twisted behavior online. However, it’s obvious what is considered ‘haram’ in chatting and what is ‘halal’ (religiously acceptable).”

Amr Ali, from the Revolutionary Political Bloc, told Al-Dostor Saturday that the fatwa was “weird” and will not find any positive feedback or acceptance among Egyptians.

“Social media was established in the first place to help people socialize. This fatwa takes the religious bodies back by years,” Ali said

Aya Samir, The Cairo Post


Spiral Of Silence Also Exists On Social Media: Pew Poll

redOrbit
Aug 27, 2014

Image Credit: Thinkstock.com

April Flowers for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online

In our social circles – especially among family, friends and co-workers – we have a tendency to hold in our views on public policy issues. This is especially true when we think our own opinion isn’t widely shared in those groups, according to pre-internet human behavior studies. Scientists call this phenomenon the “spiral of silence.”

The hope for social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter was that they would provide such a wide variety of discussion forums that people holding minority views would feel free to express their opinions. Such freedom would broaden public discourse and add new perspectives to the discussions.

The Pew Internet Research Project studied the effect of social media on the spiral of science by conducting a survey of 1,801 adults in 2013. The survey was restricted to one public policy issue: Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations of widespread government surveillance of Americans’ phone and email records. Other Pew Research polls showed the division Americans were feeling over this issue, making it a timely question for the survey. These studies found that Americans were conflicted over both whether the information leaks were justified and whether the NSA policy itself was appropriate or not. One survey, for example, found that 44 percent say that the classified information leak harms the public interest, while 49 percent said it serves the public interest.

The current survey asked questions about people’s opinions about the Snowden leaks, how willing they were to discuss the revelations in various in-person and online situations, and their perceptions of their peers’ views both online and in-person.

The results showed the following key findings:

• More people were willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA story in person than on social media — 86 percent were willing to discuss it in person, while only 42 percent of Facebook or Twitter users were willing to post about the issue.

• For those not willing to discuss the issue in person, social media did not provide an alternative platform. Only 0.3 percent of the 14 percent who were unwilling to discuss the issue face to face would post about it on social media.

• In both forums, people are more willing to share their views if they believe their audience agrees. People who believe their co-workers share their opinion were three times more likely to join a workplace conversation.

• Previous findings on the spiral of silence apply to social media platforms. Facebook users were twice as likely to join a conversation about the Snowden-NSA issue if they believed their followers agreed with them.

• Social media users were less likely to share their views in face to face settings, especially if they thought their social media followers disagreed with them. The average Facebook user is half as likely to share their opinion as other people.

[...CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE]


VIDEO — Kristov Atlas interview, pt. 2 – “Anonymous Bitcoin, Cryptography, and Online Safety” – #204 – Gnostic Media

Gnostic Media
Jul 2, 2014

GM_204

[click here for part 1]

This episode is part 2 about Bitcoin, cryptography and online security and safety and is called Anonymous Bitcoin, Cryptography and Online Safety: It’s being released on Wednesday, July 2, 2014, and was recorded yesterday on Tuesday, July 1, 2014.

Kristov Atlas is a network security and privacy researcher who studies crypto-currencies. He is the author of Anonymous Bitcoin: How to Keep Your Ƀ All to Yourself, a practical guide to maximizing financial privacy with Bitcoin. Kristov is also a correspondent for the World Crypto Network, appearing regularly on the the weekly roundtable show “The Bitcoin Group”, and host of “Dark News”, a show about un-censorship technologies.


References to this episode
:

Anonymous Bitcoin
book:
http://anonymousbitcoinbook.com

Dark News Show:
https://twitter.com/darknewsshow

Tor Project:
https://www.torproject.org

I2P Network:
https://geti2p.net/en/

Tails Linux
https://tails.boum.org

Send Bitcoin donations for this episode to:
12EQTDMzU5mxtEd8ZfyrHrxABZi3jtaCCo

Please make other forms of donations here:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/donate/

Donations. This episode is brought to you by:

Joseph
Tresor
Barry
David
Joseph
Salman

This episode is video only.

 


Thought Crime: Mozilla CEO Forced to Resign by LGBT Lobby Over ‘Opinion’ on Gay Marriage

[Apr 4, 2014]
21st Century Wire
says…

Our forefathers warned us to beware of mob rule.

Mozilla announced yesterday that its co-founder Brendan Eich (photo, left) is stepping down as CEO following LGBT lobby protests over his support for California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex, or ‘gay’ marriages in that state (the measure was later deemed unconstitutional following a federal court appeal).

Most mainstream media outlets are attributing his resignation to a boycott announcement by popular online dating site, OkCupid.com, who urged its users not to access their dating site through Mozilla’s Firefox browser, but to use Microsoft’s Internet Explorer or Google’s Chrome instead. But there’s a bit more to the story than this…

The internal storm began to brew when two gay software developers decided to launch a boycott of Firefox in protest against Eich’s new CEO appointment.

This appears to have snowballed into a full-blown feud within Mozilla over Eich’s personal views – which appear to have run contrary to those of Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, who then fired what looks to be the deadly PR round on March 29, when she first blogged that “Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality.”

Prior to resigning, CEO Eich clearly stated his position to the Guardian on Wednesday this week, “There’s a difference here between the company, the foundation, as an employer and an entity, versus the project and community at large, which is not under any constraints to agree on LGBT equality or any other thing that is not central to the mission or the Mozilla manifesto.”

Baker responded on Thursday stating, “We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public.”

The only problem here is that Ms. Baker doesn’t seem to want to include Brendan Eich in her culture of ‘sharing beliefs and opinions’.

Baker then goes on the explain why Mozilla Corp forced Eich out, and how it is ultimately accountable to its ‘communitarians‘. She explains, “This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.”

She then added, “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it”. “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.”

“We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”
At little over dramatic maybe, but it’s indicative of a US online tech industry seemingly dominated by a liberal herd. The polarity seems subtle at first glance, but the rifts are there: driving a Toyota Prius is considered virtuous, while Tweeting a conservative quip can trigger a firestorm.

Clearly, Eich and Baker’s differences could not be resolved, making for a very toxic working environment. What’s irrefutable here is that Baker chose to undermine her executive colleague in a very public manner, as Baker used her position to push her feud with Eich into the public domain, enabling her to then leverage additional support from the LGBT lobby as a result.

In a corporate setting, this precedent certainly opens the door to abuse. This scenario could be used by any employee of any company who feels they have unaddressed grievances – not just ideological ones, but personal ones – against a senior colleague, and then draw in a third party, like an LGBT lobby, in order to settle a personal score and assist in removing someone from an organisation. This creates a false “consensus”, followed by a tidal wave of online “campaigns” (see image, left) and petitions – where an innocent person can quickly be convicted in a Kangaroos Court of minority public opinion, underpinned by the highly spurious, if not dubious justification of “protecting the “ethos of the company”.

Eich is also one of the creators of the computer language known as Javascript, and has been widely recognised as one of the single most important contributors to the modern free internet.

What exactly Eich’s personal views on Prop 8 have to do with the ‘ethos’ of Mozilla is not clear. Mozilla’s Firefox browser was created by the Mozilla Foundation in 2003, a non-profit organization who supports the open source project run by Mozilla Corp. The mission of the non-profit is “putting individuals in control online.” The CEO’s personal opinions on hot social issues do not come into play at all with the functionality of Firefox, nor should they.

Ruling in Divided America

America has never been more divided along radical political lines as it is today. In many ways, a divided society suits the establishment in its will to rule with no emerging opposition to it. Radical activist groups play a key role in maintaining this vacuum of social solidarity. The age of social media means that, with a snap of the finger, special interest mobs can swarm corporations and individuals. Mobs rule by fear. It’s time to coin a new term: social racketeering.

It’s worth pointing out the obvious problem here – that in 2008, the Proposition 8 Gay Marriage Ban actually passed in 2008 in California with the majority of voters backing the measure, and in a state with a population of 35 million.

So are the millions of Californians – like Brendan Eich, who voted for, or supported the gay marriage ban also “guilty” of this same thought crime, or crime of opinion? Should each voter, and person who wrote out a cheque to campaign for Proposition 8 be identified and perhaps hunted down, and forced to resign from their jobs? If all men and women are created equal, then why not exact the mob’s punishment on everyone classified as guilty by the LGBT lobby? Wouldn’t that be more fair?

The LGBT lobby’s answer to that question would of course be something along the lines of: “We are not targeting everyone who supported Prop 8, only the high profile people (in order to make an example out of them).” This kind of reply is a nicely spun version of, “We hope by publicly toppling Eich, this will serve to intimidate others from opposing the lobby’s will in future.”

This kind of ‘razor blade’ politiking has the following objectives: ruin the man, his career and his future – because he opposed your own social views. In this toxic social environment, ‘activism’ (as some still like to refer to it) has been weaponised.

In a country which purports to champion its citizens’ rights of freedom of speech, expression and more importantly – freedom of opinion, this disturbing trend of minority activist lobbies bullying individuals into submission because of their personal views (clearly the case with Brendan Eich) is simply a mob prosecution of ‘thought crime’, which any radical pragmatist, given the chance, would easily upgrade to ‘hate crime’. Is this Social racketeering, or cultural Marxism? Take your pick. Both are a step backwards, and are highly undesirable conditions in a truly egalitarian and free society.

The Slippery Slope of Tyranny

Uncomfortable to some as it might be, in the United States of America, it is not illegal, nor should it viewed as ‘undesirable’, for an individual to voice one’s opposition – for or against – any state or federal law. The dangers of enabling such a mob tyranny to single out individuals who are not guilty of any real crime are obvious – by crushing support or dissent for any one law, the mob is greasing a slippery slope towards the elimination of not only freedom of speech and beliefs, but dissent for any unconstitutional law. In the long run, this might empower the state over the individual. This might be a hard concept for some to grapple with who only see this issue a small victory nudging forward, but not to anyone with any foresight. Viewed in isolation, gang tackling a person out of his job today may not seem like much, but think about what the next step will look like – a digressive ‘Lord of the Flies’ society where the mobs determine who is innocent and who is guilty – and whether or not any actual crime is committed does not even factor in. Some will argue that we are already there.

Most certainly, gay rights, along with other minority rights of race minorities, disabled minorities, homeless persons, and religious minorities – should be defended. However, there exists a fine line between defending one’s rights and attacking one’s perceived political opponents. The latter is wrong, especially when conducted at the hands of an aggressive, politicized mob.

The fundamental concept which the LGBT ‘collective’ (lobby) do not understand, or are unable to grasp, is basic game theory, where an offensive strategy has consequences. Although it may seem politically vogue today, by exerting radical ‘communitarianism‘ influence through the deployment of fear, intimidation and harassment – any radical minority may in fact be sowing the seeds of their own demise, and society’s too, in the long run. History shows us that such counter-revolutionary movements, especially ultra-conservative ones – are swift and brutal. The only protection against this, is by guarding the inherent rights which we all share, even if that means defending the rights of those whom you may ideologically disagree with.

Targeting individuals and depriving them of their fundamental right to work, expression of a personal opinion, or even disagreement with the lobby, is merely aiding the acceleration of the erosion of universal rights for all citizens, including LGBT ones. Once those rights are gone, they are gone for everyone, and no one will have universal protection under the law, or a ‘Bill of Rights’.

After the LGBT lobby has finished its social cull of its alleged ideological opponents, then a new mob – whether it’s the establishment, or another radical conservative, or religious mob – will set its sights on the LGBT community.

In a free and fair America, LGBT activists should defend Brendan Eich’s right to have an opinion. That would be real tolerance. Anything else is cheap knockoff – phony freedom.

READ MORE LGBT NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire LGBT Files

-


PODCAST — Kristov Atlas interview, pt. 1 – “Anonymous Bitcoin, Cryptography, and Online Safety” – #203

Gnostic Media
June 25, 2014

GM_203
This episode is part 1 about Bitcoin, cryptography and online security and safety and is called Anonymous Bitcoin, Cryptography and Online Safety: It’s being released on Wednesday, June 25, 2014, and was recorded yesterday on Tuesday, June 24, 2014.

Kristov Atlas is a network security and privacy researcher who studies crypto-currencies. He is the author of Anonymous Bitcoin: How to Keep Your Ƀ All to Yourself, a practical guide to maximizing financial privacy with Bitcoin. Kristov is also a correspondent for the World Crypto Network, appearing regularly on the the weekly roundtable show “The Bitcoin Group”, and host of “Dark News”, a show about un-censorship technologies.

References to this episode
:

Anonymous Bitcoin
book:
http://anonymousbitcoinbook.com

Dark News Show:
https://twitter.com/darknewsshow

Tor Project:
https://www.torproject.org

I2P Network:
https://geti2p.net/en/

Dark Wallet:
https://darkwallet.unsystem.net

Dark Wallet in the News:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/dark-wallet/
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/05/06/bitcoin-dark-money-dark-wallet

Panopticlick:
https://panopticlick.eff.org

Blockchain.info:
https://blockchain.info

Taint Analysis:
https://blockchain.info/taint/1dice6GV5Rz2iaifPvX7RMjfhaNPC8SXH

Bitcoin Fog:
http://www.bitcoinfog.com

Tails Linux (for next week’s episode)
https://tails.boum.org

Send Bitcoin donations for this episode to:
12EQTDMzU5mxtEd8ZfyrHrxABZi3jtaCCo

Please make other forms of donations here:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/donate/

Donations. This episode is brought to you by:

Paul
zdravko
Bill
James
Brandon
Barry
Mark
Jeremy
Tino
Steve

BTC:
1K8NfoB… x2

Video version:

Audio only:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:21:10 — 74.6MB) | Embed


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 872 other followers