[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)
Required: 2 + 2 =

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

| Catalog | Home


Oliver Cromwell was the greatest British Revolutionary.
Oliver Cromwell is akin to Robspierre, a revolutionary far ahead of his time, which helped develope a revolutionary tradition within britain and inspire europe itself to light itself aflame in the fires of revolt. His reforms introduced democracy not only to the state but to all of society itself. His New Model army was itself based of a democratic foundation which pushed for discussion and debate within its ranks in order to make the army iteslf a ideological extension of Parlimentary Political thought, something which was also seen within the Red Army.
Since then, a pile of dirt was thrown across Cromwells grave and he was deemed a imperialist, a genocider, and other such statements which were fabricated by the Royalist restorationists with no basis for such claims other than trying to de-legitimize a authentic Revolutionary which was Cromwell. While not as radical as the Levellers or Diggers, Cromwell still stands as a progressive and revolutionary hero in British history, and rehabilitating his image amongst Marxists and Britons as a whole would lay the foundations for a revolutionary revival in Britain.

In short' I'd like to end with a quote from Trotsky: "British workers can learn incomparably more from Cromwell than from MacDonald, Snowden, Webb and other such compromising brethren. Cromwell was a great revolutionary of his time, who knew how to uphold the interests of the new, bourgeois social system against the old aristocratic one without holding back at anything. This must be learnt from him, and the dead lion of the seventeenth century"

35 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1683613754870-0.png (153.42 KB, 500x500, Grace smile cheerful.png)

File: 1683613754870-1.jpg (105.2 KB, 1024x683, FveMFHgXgAE2ayA.jpg)

Read monarchist propaganda.
Simp for Grace.
All hail HM King Charles III.

<So let us not lose the fight, that after we have seen the King in his Beauty, we should see a King in Blood; no, if the Laws of God, and the Mercy of the King not quench Fire-brands, but there should happen to be new flames, new wars, let all faithful Subjects be dismembered rather than one Member of his Sacred Person should be wounded, and let every loyal Hand in the three Nations be cut off, rather then the traitorous hand should touch his Royal Head. For if we should be deprived again of the King in his Beauty, the Beauty of the Land is gone, and misery of the Land will renew, we shall have old plundering, and rifling, and sequestering, and imprisoning, and braining, and gibbetting again; if the King suffer, let us not think to escape scot-free; if the King die, let us not think to live long after him, no, let us resolve of a general Massacre, and a Funeral of the whole Nation.

t. Tho. Reeve (1661)


File: 1683614362144.jpg (41.9 KB, 398x500, SirArthurHaselrig.jpg)

The real shot of Britain getting rid of the monarchy was this guy tbh: Sir Arthur Haselrig. Opposed Monarchy, opposed Cromwell's Commonwealth, opposed Lambert's junta, seized power and restored the Rump Parliament before being betrayed by Moncke. He wasn't as radical as the Diggers or Levellers, but he had a real shot at solidifying the gains of the Civil War and prevent a Restoration, if he had not trusted Moncke.

The Diggers were cool and all, but if you read the True Levellers Standard Advanced, you'll see how they were too pacifistic to really succeed.
>Our bodies as yet are in thy hand, our Spirit waits in quiet and peace, upon our Father for Deliverance; and if he give our Bloud into thy hand, for thee to spill, know this, That he is our Almighty Captain: And if some of you will not dare to shed your bloud, to maintain Tyranny and Oppression upon the Creation, know this, That our Bloud and Life shall not be unwilling to be delivered up in meekness to maintain universal Liberty, that so the Curse on our part may be taken off the Creation.

>And we shall not do this by force of Arms, we abhorre it, For that is the work of the Midianites, to kill one another; […]

Levellers were proto-bourgeois, they were pretty based too, but it was a slim chance to get An Agreement of the People past the Grandees, when they tried it IRL the Grandees drafted the Heads of Proposals and presented that to Charles instead.


File: 1683614521897.png (510.13 KB, 576x768, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 1683615142169.jpg (6.24 MB, 3000x4000, ingsoc.jpg)

gemmy; here's higher res (maybe)


This would be England now if Corbyn had taken the revolutionary course instead of trying to placate the r*mainers.

File: 1683332969815.png (3.74 KB, 464x209, basu1.png)


With all the corporate consolidations and acquisitions and mergers at an all time high and with banks collapsing left and right. Is the ROP just tanking? And I mean so low that there's no way to draw any more profit except through more and more consolidation. To me it seems that the ROP has gone into the negatives and shareholders primacy is the only policy, abandoning long term plans for short term quarterly results.
32 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1683432193192.jpg (328.68 KB, 1176x635, steel-featured.jpg)

Yet investment in the means of production has also hit record lows. The USA has lost tonnage outputs across the board for heavy industry like steel as American capitalists simply hasn't invested in industry since the fall of the Soviet Union. This is why even the US Military industrial Complex can't complex even with modern Russia with mass production of arms due industry starving for reinvestment.

All those profits are short sighted as come at the cost of US industry falling father and farther behind its competitors that are investing in production.


>corporations will provide money and other benefits for the overall welfare of those who work there like healthcare, dental care
Yea but they reached that point due to workers not having vooting powers and their predecessors working their ass out to make company revenue. After you reach a certain point of prosperity its easy to provide these amenities and focus more on employ welfare.

>Labor-managed firms also already exist; the most well-known is the workers cooperative Mondragon. Even within a neoclassical framework, labor-managed firms are entirely viable.

Yea but its still under capitalism with markets and are a minority


>Yea but its still under capitalism with markets and are a minority
You said:
>>electoral democracy in politics have proven to be a inefficient lets implement it in workplace… what could go wrong
>giving workers the voting rights will eventually degenerate companies into welfare units
Neither of which is true empirically. If your contention is that people won't work under socialism, that isn't true either in the case of "actually existing socialism" or in the case of the more socialistic kibbutzim in Israel.

Also, if you're the one advocating for monarchy, monarchy makes even less sense from the point of view of efficiency. If a monarch is mentally stable, intelligent, and healthy, the state will at the very least tend to function as well as any other, all else being equal, but these qualities are hardly guaranteed historically. Primogeniture is always a matter of genetic chance, and, if the successor is nominated from within the royal family or within the nobility, this doesn't guarantee continuous and stable administration, even if the monarch in question is successful, intelligent, and so forth (e.g. Marcus Aurelius and Commodus).


I see USSR graph like this, compared to China today, and realize just how much USSR degraded after Stalin. Just another country, analogous in results to capitalists


And then comes in China and makes it so instead of 2 million products you can only sell 1 million or even less.


Preface: This handy set of rules covers most of the games which disinformation artists play on the Internet (and offline). When you know the tricks, you’ll be able to spot the games. Even if you’ve read this list before, you might be surprised at how useful it is to brush up on these tricks.

Update: This was originally apparently written by H. Michael Sweeney.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponenPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
15 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Dear sir, madame, comrade, citizen or beautiful, extravagant other,
I'm here to politely inform you that you seem to be getting drawn into the very thing your article warns against.

Ad hominems, name calling, emotional attacks, etc.

So perhaps be aware of that and then secondly, I'd like to add to your lists something I did not observe from a quick perusal, the tactic:
Isn't that in the three "D's" of information warfare?
Or is it four?
Dilute, distract, demoralize, destroy?

At any rate, yeah, if you haven't, and if you feel so inclined of course, you can look up textbooks and etc on ol libgen there, the search phrases: "memetic warfare" (which apparently even the United States Marine Corp wrote a book on),
"information warfare",
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


"Disinformation" doesn't have rules. There are some general patterns but bad faith discourse adapts to its contexts.


File: 1685662136218.png (570.62 KB, 1498x2428, 1657539654898.png)




>obligatory "ZOMG this is cointelpro u guys" reference
It's like these people just don't learn what cointelpro was or who it targeted.

>fun shitposts are literally a conspiracy

I get what they're saying, and if it were an actual serious board and not just /v/, it might have some good points about concern trolls and low-content posts. I'm 80% sure this is just some GG autist who wants /v/ to be their personal army, like the neo-nazi organizers desperately trying to turn disaffected gamer nerds into disciplined warriors.

 No.13080[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

A lot of you seem to be under the belief that you can have marxist theory without ontological grounding. But to me it seems the positive sciences that say things about the 'world' rely on a totally certain idea of what 'world' means. So why don't we all have a calm discussion about ontology and attempt to come to an understanding of why there are so many of you (usually tankies) for whomst philosophy and ontology appears 'meaningless'? For me it seems to be the most important thing that we properly understand the dependency and aims of sciences (which simply explicate categories about our "external" reality) on a proper approach towards the world. In a sense, I think Marxists also unconsciously on some level agree with this, because you recognise that the bourgeois sciences mainly operate in service of capital, and this is unwanted. But on the other hand you seem to shoot yourselves on the foot by explicitly denying the validity of ontology in favour of vapid essentialism. From where does this 'materialism' come? Even in naive realist ontologies we see that the brain mediates reality, but there is no account for this in the materialist ontology.

I don't see much substance from Marx by way of arguing for materialism either. Deleuze follows kind of a more enlightened transcendental empiricism which I find far more respectable but that required torturous meditation beginning from a throwing away of beings in favour of the search for a proper ontology. But *you* personally, the person who is reading this, how do you understand ontology, if all you've spent all your life on is the pursuit of small-B beings, never evaluating the existential nature of 'world', which rather than being something we are merely placed in, is constitutive of our being?
129 posts and 28 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


these are metaphyiscal positions, not ontological ones. They're focused on substance not being


Isn't ontology metaphysical harry potter


it would be great if you could explain why you think that. most people consider ontology to be a part of metaphysics.


Okay but what the hell does that mean


>these are metaphyiscal positions, not ontological ones.

File: 1683146673238.png (426.7 KB, 625x1000, ClipboardImage.png)


What was this book about again? It was my least favorite Lenin book. I know it's like the Organon to Engels' Dialectics of Nature, but every single one of Lenin's arguments was so unremarkable that they're forgettable. He's very terse and verbose. Does Lenin argue badly or is materialism a very dull philosophy and we like making shit up (see the post-1968. French Left).

Like, help a comrade out here. I fell in a post-Marxist reading hellscape due to bourgeois propaganda and need a hefty dose of sanity to get back on track.
79 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


><Explain to me why are MLs superior to other leftoid sectarian tendencies, when other tendencies gather more people IRL?
They don't ML, and MLM which are both based in dialectical materialism, are the main communist tendencies world wide. ML is small in the west exclusively due to capitalist propaganda.

><Why should I give money to ML orgs when they are a minority at the protests I go to?

I don't think you necessarily should. Even anarchist or socdems might be the best option depending on your local parties.

>What is so great about "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism"?

The explanation of dialectics and positivism, and how non-dialectical thought necessarily leads to idealism. All the polemics are just fluff provided to give examples, ironically the same as Pannekoeks pamphlet.

>Why was Pannekoek wrong?

He is only wrong about claiming that Lenin was a "Middle-Class Materialist". He is claiming that Lenin is a vulgar materialist or physical reductionist because he doesn't like his use of the word matter or his insistence on its primacy in the dialectic, but he doesn't disagree with his method at all. He thinks that Lenin's insistence on the primacy of matter is fundamentally tied to the implementation of state capitalism over immediate abolition of commodity production and is the source of corruption in the USSR. I don't really see an argument to support this or how one follows from the other.

He is actually correct about dialectics and that you have to abolish commodity production to change the consciousness of people to achieve communism, but he is incorrect that abolishing commodity production immediately in a country that is underdeveloped and lacks industry to defend itself from military invasion by imperialist powers is reasonable or possible.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Thank you anon for your detailed answer. I have nothing to add or be all polemical about right now. Cheers.


>Soviets under Lenin invented the science of ecology (before Stalin purged them later, once again)
KEK. This is outright schizo.
>I try not be to be too harsh on the USSR with people outside of our little clique
<Repeats almost every known anticommunist argument about USSR there is
What did he mean by that?


>I have a political event to attend tomorrow and it's fucking late
Stop pretending you are anything but a little troll.


Anticommunis spiel. You manage to hit all the anticommunist talking points like "muh german comrades" who were actual trots (outlawed in Soviet Union in early 1930s) who were collaborating with nazis

Elsewhere you hit on Hungary 1956 which was an Operation Gladio fascist coup attempt in socialist bloc with mi6 arming and training the Horthyites


File: 1682951664459.gif (1002.02 KB, 250x251, downloadfile.gif)


in my country, there is a laborist political movement akin to spanish national syndicalism that appropiated the pro-workers discourse
around the 2000s, they invented the term "popular class" in contrast to the "oligarch class". im not exactly sure of its implications, maybe its a rebranding of the universal "middle class" term, or they (more likely) synthetized an alliance between workers and lumpenproles. what are the implications and consequences of this manufactured discourse?
30 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


pure conjecture cuz im not informed about most South American politics but my guess would be the maoist emphasis on the peasantry and countryside may have something to do with it, the naxalites in india are also have strong ties to indigenous groups for example


you could be less of a pedantic faggot and speak earnestly and politely. i made this thread specifically to learn, not to assert my knowledge. if you took time to read my other posts, youd know that the argentine lumpemproletariat, captured by the bourgeois state, is encouraged to feel pride towards their condition and it is very hard to help them acquire consciousness
i cannot say much about those populations, i live in buenos aires, so i talk from my own experience with urban and suburbia fit militants


>you could be less of a pedantic faggot
My point is your options are to right your mast or accept failure and cope. So many leftists choose the latter. Many of them because it is all they hear, a feedback loop of defeatism.
>if you took time to read my other posts, youd know that the argentine lumpemproletariat, captured by the bourgeois state, is encouraged to feel pride towards their condition and it is very hard to help them acquire consciousness
First of all if you think someone is lumpen because they lack class consciousness and not the other way around you are not a marxist. Secondly if you believe that all the state has to do is tell the proletariat that they should be happy about being alienated we have already lost because whoops tsar nicky just forgot to hit the propaganda button and marxism is solved forever.


what a dense motherfucker. your high and mighty attitude show that you are a basement dork that doesnt interact with people in real life. for the life of me, i cant imagine such a snob organizing or helping other workers

fuck off. reply to me if youre a retarded methhead that diddles kids and takes it up the ass


>Hello I would like help
>Wow you're gay retarded and a loser
What do you want me to say? That it's okay for you to give up and turn into one of those "amerikkka settlers will never be revolutionary" guys but for a global South country?

 No.18068[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

This video is titled The Gay Body Image Crisis by James Somerton, seemingly its a video essay about gay people's body image issues, but in actuality its just bizarre venting against fit people through ahistorical revisionism.

The main narrative presented throughout this essay is that recreational exercise. physical fitness, and bodybuilding were invented by the Nazis, based on antique statues and these were then bought to the US by gay soldiers, where it shaped first the gay sub culture and later became the mainstream image among the heteros. There are a few obvious problems with these statements.
So modern fitness training in the US started about a hundred years before the Nazi party, In addition, the bronze era of bodybuilding, began with Sandow before the turn of the century: predating WW1, So Americans, gay or straight, didn't inspiration from the SS in regard to body image and exercise.
He also makes a claim that the BMI formula was specifically invited by white supremacist and used by Nazis to find an ideal solider bodytype, so again the BMI also predates the Nazis and while the tables were developed after WW2, and they were based on mortality studies, so the normal weight category was the one with the lowestmortality rate, not the one closest to a SS-Supersoldier
The absolute most ridiculous claim he makes is that he states Ernst Röhm was killed because he was fat and hence didn't fit the image of the ideal man, while the party politics surrounding the so called Röhm coup are not even mentioned. Somerton leaves out the fact that one of Röhms greatest rivals, one who talked Hitler into killing him, was Hermann Göring – a man just as fat as Röhm. Seriously, of course this was about power and politics, not body image.

So at the end of the video Somerton, based on these misleading historical narratives, try's to shame people for being into fit people because that's what "Hitler thought was perfect." like the bodies in the clips he uses are not that uncommon in many young men, that's the bodytype of most fit healthy young men and that can be found in any race of men, I mean the whole bodypositivity, HEAS and fat acceptance movement was always ripe with body-shaming and open scorne of thinner people, that is nothing new. But the politicization of a certain body type, its identification with a political ideology, is. concerning to say the least
like guess who also heavily idealized the muscular body in their propaganda,Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
127 posts and 22 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


majority of breadtuber vidoes could be cut in half or even quarter length, if they didn't focus on the pointless theatrics and insert unrelated tangents about pop-culture shit


Wow this is accurate. It goes along a step further where beauty is determined on facial features, not an attribute you can control exactly. Being fat or being fit is for the most part, controllable and requires effort.


>Today it is the working class that are fat.
Go take a look at the U.S. Congress and claim they’re working class


>petite-bourgeois fuck own a yacht or something.
The petite-bourgeois are not owning a fucking yacht. They’re your typical small business owners that are often poorer than welders.
The people who own yachts ARE the problem. They run the country and the world, it’s their fault. That’s the whole point in revolutionary socialism.


>That’s the whole point in revolutionary socialism.
i thought the point was dismantling capital and class division not focusing on rich fucks

File: 1626398984365.jpg (149.39 KB, 600x389, Thread.jpg)


Things to share: Movies, documentaries and mainly books.
Anything related to socialism, anarchy, communism and so on.

>Absolute beginner material




>More Marx and Engels


Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
73 posts and 66 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Anyone got books from Kojeve or Losurdo for download?



Stirner's Unique and Its Property (the best translation) as both epub and pdf.



Goodbye comrade. Thank you and good luck o7


Found this off 4chan

>Leftist Movies 1-4

>Just leftist related movies and documentaries apparently.

Leftist Movies 1:

Leftist Movies 2:

Leftist Movies 3:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Hello I'm kind of a baby socialist. I understand the core concepts of how capitalists exploit workers, surplus value, labor theory of value and the general idea of capitalist exploitation in third world countries. However, if I try digging into anything beyond that my brain goes blank. Even if say, I'll read Mao's little red book and come out with a basic idea of what he was talking about, I'll immediately lose it the next day. It's really frustrating and difficult to get myself to read more knowing I'll just forget everything overnight at worst or in a couple of days at best.
In general, what questions should I be asking? How to approach a new topic that might seem intimidating or complex for a poopbrain like me?
8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Here are my tips

- Read actively. Think along with what you are reading. For that make highlights and notes. Think about the applications of what you are reading. Question what you are reading. Try to support the author's arguments.
- Write a short one sentence summary of the paragraph you've just read. Starting from the third paragraph of a chapter write a one sentence summary of every paragraph that came prior. Then write another one sentence summary to the current chapter.


I use the zettelkasten method. You really have to work for it for the system to payoff, but it is worth it.


Good advice in this thread.
I usually only read books once and without notetaking, but often pause and stare into the distance for a few minutes to process everything. If you don't take notes, you need to prove to yourself you have understood the important parts of the book and how other parts relate to them consciously. When you will find yourself struggling with a specific concept, just think longer or look up what others have to say about it.
Notes are unavoidable for doing actual work on the basis of what you are reading though. Technically the essays i wrote in highschool were embellished notes on how a specific book relates to my thesis.


This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Yeah, learning entails a set period of focused work (i.e. trying to understand) and another period of not thinking about the matter, and just letting yourself "digest" the knowledge. The proof you have learned is that after you digested the knowledge you can recall it as you desire. This, of course, may take a few tries, depending on the subject.


>You really have to work for it for the system to payoff, but it is worth it.
Is it? I've tried starting a zettelkasten multiple times but the process seems way more tedious than it is useful, compared to taking notes normally. What did you get out of it in the long term?

File: 1682752276713.png (1.73 MB, 1500x1500, American Dialectics.png)


Lets examine these two men, or more specifically, the way they were viewed and the eras they represent.

Washington - Is supposed to represent the true founding of the US. This aristocratic figure, who through war, created this nation. A Napoleonic figure, in the sense that he led the war personally, and was the one who led the nation personally. His era represents a time where the states were in majority control. When the constitution was most respected. And of course, in some circles, what the US represented and should represent. A WASP nation. A Christian nation.

Lincoln - A man who represents the savior of this nation. This unlikely figure who rose from out of nowhere, and had the wherewithal to be able to keep it together. He represents the beginning of the centralization of the US. What's interesting about him was that he technically represents the beginning what the real nation of the US. Whereas before, they were the United States of America, now its the United States of America, with the US identity finally developing. A strangely Napoleonic move, if I do say so. And lastly, of course, the man who was able to overcome the US's original sin. Slavery.

Now for their detractors, its easy. Some will look at Washington (and Lincoln for that matter) as good for nothing racists. Washington so more because of his slaves. While others (reactoids) will look at Lincoln and curse him for causing the end of the US by allowing the Negro the same rights as Whites.

Now lots of these views are all great man theory. And they don't truly show who they were. They were complex humans, with strange morals. Washington hated slavery, but he kept his slaves. Lincoln detested slavery, but said he wanted ship black people back to Africa. This was pre civil war, but nonetheless, shows that these people aren't as simple as "good American guy" or "evil yakubian devil". But its interesting to see how different political tendencies viewed these two men and what they represented over the years. I would say the image in OP is the best example of what I mean. You have these two opposing forces, choosing two pivotal figures in US history, each representing different values. There is a clear reason for that and why still to this day, you will have reactionary forces calling on the memory of Washington over Lincoln. The left side less so, but still supporting similar ideas. John Brown, RePost too long. Click here to view the full text.
2 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Washington was an enlightenment lib who didn't like the influence of church on state even if he was a practicing Anglican
This is what the real Founding Fathers were like


based chalmers


i mean let's be real. the reason the 1939 american nazis liked washington is because he owned slaves, and the reason the 1938 American communists liked Lincoln is because he is perceived as having freed the slaves


Was America truly founded on Hitlerism?


How can you argue Washington was a symbol of wasp identity in the 30s when the bund was flying banners of him lol “let’s say, you’re retarded”

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home