[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1774362983711.jpg (621.7 KB, 1885x2619, Russische_Natuurkundige_Ly….jpg)

 

I legitimately do not understand why people believe he was wrong. Look at Jewish people and how specialized into getting better at academia or India with how certain groups become natural fishermen. Lysenkoism feels like it's striking a cord between Stirnerite individualism and collectivism and it legitimately sounds cooler than Darwin's lame "one will breed more than the other and the species will survive". Darwin's system doesn't explain suicide for example.
83 posts and 19 image replies omitted.

>>2756787
Why haven't other people tried to replicate this by themselves? What was the one instance where he was wrong?

>>2753463
>a fish cannot procreate with a man
uygha never experienced a fishlight before.

>>2756770
>russian schizo
nta but yeah i noticed this too. Ive seen them even deny the moonlanding lol

File: 1774614614329.png (97.78 KB, 476x500, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2756796
His work was pretty crucial in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Longping this guys science which lead to China figuring out how to stop global famines.

He was wrong when it came to the totality of environment in genetic factors with crops - he completely disregarded DNA because the USSR got into a moral panic against Social Darwinism due to the Nazis tryna genocide them.

We understand that its both DNA and environment now, he was just part of the natural dialectic that got resolved in large part because of his work.

He also worked out how to grow sub-artic lemons.

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2020/04/fruit-trenches-cultivating-subtropical-plants-in-freezing-temperatures/

People who think hes a pseud havent done an honest assessment of his lifetime work.

File: 1774614909563.png (1.6 MB, 1080x1313, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2756811

File: 1774615206070.png (71.92 KB, 677x482, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2756811
Last point but there is a big reason why famines stopped being a thing after the 1940s, guys like this worked it out.

Famines used to happen every couple of decades - one bad harvest, and then another by your neigbhour and 80% of you are starving to death. The west slanders Lysenko because the USSR made mistakes while under immense pressure from a genocidal force and while recovering from the scars of feudal serfdom, but he prevented so many deaths. Hes a folk hero and still celebrated as such by people who haven't had the wool pulled over.

>>2756811
Yuan longping rejected lysenko. Yuan talked about how he did multiple grafting experiments to test lysenkos theories. It didnt produce a second or third generation that inherited acquired traits.
He then concluded that soviet theories were problematic so he went and studied mendel and morgans genetic theories.
Why did you use a person who rejected lysenko and accepted west genetic theories?

>>2756828
You fail to understand that in order to reject him, he has to have done science in the first place. He proved what didnt work in practice and detailed how it didnt work, this is the ladder of science.

Also aside from this he did exponentially increase the soviets grain production, that alone is a feat worth praising. The issues that arose from Lysenko wasnt his science - finding whats wrong is as important as finding what is right, its more sociological in that he wasn't given an environment to fail in that didn't lead to mass causalities due to the Nazis invading them and creating economic insecurity and internal paranoia.

>>2756828
Also, if he was a pseud he'd have literally nothing to show for himself, but thats not the case. He has several theories that are still held up today. (Vernalization, phasic development of plants)

>>2756828
>Yuan longping rejected lysenko
And? Great man theory idol worship.

>>2756830
>he has to have done science in the first place. He proved what didnt work in practice and detailed how it didnt work, this is the ladder of science.

so he did science which shows that lysenko beliefs were false and flawed. Therefore providing legitimacy to a large part of why people criticize lysenko
Eh…..

>Also aside from this he did exponentially increase the soviets grain production, that alone is a feat worth praising

How much of this increase was due to lysenkos theories. And how much of it was due to industrializing and mechanization of argiculture?
Also didnt countries that rejected or never embraced lysenkos beliefs also xpirence rapid growth of argiculture. And also stopped having famines too during or after their industrialization?

>>2756837
>He has several theories that are still held up today. (Vernalization, phasic development of plants)

These theories already existed before lysenko. Or at least had proto versions of it. Lysenko for example, did not invent vernalization

>>2756842
The famines of the 1930s and 1946, from what i've read are due to manpower shortages, not genetics anyway. People like to slander Lysenko because the slander distracts from the fact y'know, the Nazi's where currently invading them, promising to genocide them and scortch earthing as they went. The soviets had to literally dedicate every prole to resisting this, it lead to farm shortages and understandably, famines and poor decisions.

I guarantee if the nazis never became a force in Germany shit would have played out differently.

>>2756846
>These theories already existed before lysenko. Or at least had proto versions of it. Lysenko for example, did not invent vernalization

He didnt invent it no, but he did provide new knowledge on it when it came to treating seeds with cold, he came to some wrong conclusions after that but still provided new and correct observations. This is common with science, we figure out a little bit but might get something wrong and other people reiterate on it.

>so he did science which shows that lysenko beliefs were false and flawed. Therefore providing legitimacy to a large part of why people criticize lysenko
Eh…..

There are real criticisms of him id accept honestly, mostly around the careerism that he engaged in and backstabbing of other academics. Its good to wash away the bullshit liberals throw on him though like blaming him for millions of deaths - that was obviously the nazis.

>>2753053
Because looksmaxxing doesnt make one right

>>2756846
>also xpirence rapid growth of argiculture.
*experience

File: 1774618774218.jpg (74.28 KB, 1298x1128, vat.jpg)

>>2753053
>Why was Lysenko wrong
That's the neat part, he wasn't.

File: 1774622438353.png (91.09 KB, 960x540, ClipboardImage.png)

chat, is bonesmashing lysenkoism?

>>2756846
>How much of this increase was due to lysenkos theories. And how much of it was due to industrializing and mechanization of argiculture?

Good question. Important to note it wasn't answered by the replies.

>>2756904
I dont have a definitive answer to it, its worth investigating as a variable.

>>2756899
Is mewing Lysenkoism?

>>2756494
>you want stalin to be bad
made shit up award

>>2756846
>How much of this increase was due to lysenkos theories. And how much of it was due to industrializing and mechanization of argiculture?
For one Lysenkoist policy drove the creation of a lot of new varieties. It also directly resulted in the discovery of Kok-Saghyz cluster planting, which made the plant a viable source of natural rubber from 1931 to 1950, and the "tops" method for potatos, that made cultivation possible in previously intenably cold latitudes. None of these could be replicated just by throwing fertilizer, irrigation or machinery at the problem.
>Also didnt countries that rejected or never embraced lysenkos beliefs also xpirence rapid growth of argiculture. And also stopped having famines too during or after their industrialization?
Few industrialized countries of the time faced agricultural conditions as severe as those in many parts of the Soviet Union, which is why US factory farming could always rely on monocultures artificial fertilizers, outside of crises like the dust bowl. The large-scale cultivation of corn famously established by Khruschev had disastrous long-term consequences, precisely because it ignored the kind of environmental factors that were central to Lysenko's Michurinism.

>>2756787
>grain production increased during the time agriculture was being increasingly industrialized

>>2756990
why attribute such a thing due to the development of productive forces (base) when I could attribute it to the lone heroics of one scientist?

>>2756913
How likely is it that great man theory trumps the development of productive forces when it comes to the question of grain production in the country with the largest land area on Earth?

>>2756981
>For one Lysenkoist policy drove the creation of a lot of new varieties. It also directly resulted in the discovery of Kok-Saghyz cluster planting, which made the plant a viable source of natural rubber from 1931 to 1950, and the "tops" method for potatos, that made cultivation possible in previously intenably cold latitudes. None of these could be replicated just by throwing fertilizer, irrigation or machinery at the problem.
books on this subject?

>>2757016
https://archive.org/details/V.SafonovLandInBloomOptimized

File: 1774630532766.pdf (8.17 MB, 155x255, V. Safonov - Land in Bloo….pdf)

>>2757029
NTA but thanks; directly attaching PDF to thread

>>2757029
>>2757045
thx anons

>>2757045
>>2757029
>The ideas that Lysenko expounded on November 5, 1945, in his lecture at the improvement courses for state plant breedingstation workers, that he expounded later in his articles in Sotsialisticheskoye Zemledelye,. and in a number of other articles and books, must, undoubtedly, have arisen in his mind much earlier. Already in 1943, the cluster sowing of kok-saghyz that he had recommended, and which he regarded as being inseverably connected with his new conception of the very ABC of Darwinism, was being widely practised; and earlier still, in 1940, his lecture on “Engels and Certain Problems of Darwinism” that he delivered at the Academy of Sciences gave all grounds for anticipating his subsequent ruthless criticism of “intraspecific competition.”
>Yes, the controversy raged around the question of intraspecific competition, of the mutual struggle between individuals in the same species, which authors of textbooks on Darwinism were inclined to proclaim as one of the three pillars that supported the theoretical edifice erected by the “hermit of Down.”
>Lysenko was simply of the opinion that - there was no such thing as intraspecific competition.
>But when we were at school, did we not, together with theorems in Euclid, study calculations which showed that one pair of elephants could fill the world with elephants in the course of seven hundred and something years, and that one dandelion plant could fill the world with dandelions in less than ten years, if all the young elephants survived and all the winged dandelion seeds sprouted? There appeared to be nothing to argue about. “Struggle for existence,” was the conclusion drawn in the textbooks. Only a tiny fraction of the newborn creatures survive. The rest are destroyed in the ruthless battle of life. And the textbooks capped this with the observation: “This battle is exceptionally fierce, of course, among the individuals of the same species, for they all demand the same thing from external environment. Hence, they, first of all, come into conflict with each other.”
>[..]
>The tacit assumption of overpopulation, of congestion (which they did not always take the trouble to find and point to in nature, but in the most cases accepted on faith, on the basis of mathematical calculations)— was not this the first weak link in the “chain”?
>Lysenko enquired ironically: So, actually, the poor rabbits suffer more from each other than they do from wolves and foxes?
>And how,he enquired further, does this intraspecific struggle harmonize with the theory of natural selection, with Darwin's theory itself? Does not natural selection result in the species acquiring and accumulating useful characters? In what way is the direct or indirect mutual extermination of the individuals useful for the species? Perhaps suicide is the best method of sustaining life and health?
>In opposition to the arguments and observation of those who recognize the existence of an intraspecific struggle, Lysenko adduced his own arguments and facts; and they were extremely characteristic. Knowing Lysenko, one could have foreseen what they would be. They were the arguments of agrobiology, and the facts were taken from the practice of the agriculturist.
>[…]
>What is a crop, what is a good crop? After all, it is the achievement of living harmony in the fields within the particular variety of plant that is being cultivated and its harmony with the other varieties, its field neighbours, with its predecessors, and with the plants that will be planted after it. The science of crop raising is precisely the science of this living harmony.
>“One can believe,” says Lysenko, “that weeds, which are varieties other than wheat, for example, hinder the latter, suffocate it. But nobody will believe that sparsely-sown, and therefore weed-mixed, wheat is better off in the field than densely-sown pure wheat. . . .”
Flood detected; Post discarded.

>>2756848
none of this has any bearing on the validity of Lysenko's hypotheses

>>2757056
>Lysenko took his stand on the experience of seed growers, of the kolkhoz fields, of the work of millions of human hands and, with his characteristic ardour, he fiercely attacked those who challenged his claims on alleged “academic" grounds that were inimical to the interests of the people.
>But what about the dandelion, that classical example of propagation in geometric progression? Very well, let us take the dandelion, but a variety that is very useful to man — kok-saghyz.
>As long as kok-saghyz was sown in lines, so that the growing plants should not crowd each other, it grew badly, barely sprouted, and only a few, fluffy seeds appeared on each plant. The amount of seed collected was scarcely equal to the amount planted.
>In 1943, Lysenko proposed a radical change in the method of cultivating kok-saghyz. It must be sown in clusters., he said, 100 to 200 seeds in each cluster (even 200 to 300 if the supply is plentiful).
>Two hundred seeds to the cluster—what congestion there must be there! But this did not daunt Lysenko. He argued as follows.
>Kok-saghyz is an inhabitant of the thicket, it is a “cellar dweller.” To plant it alone in the sun and wind, carefully to smooth its leaves and walk on tiptoe around it to break up the soil and not allow even a blade of grass to remain near it, would be a disservice to it.
>When planted in clusters, however, a bunch of buds willspring up, a cap of kok-saghyz leaves clinging closely to each other, rather long, and smoother-edged than our ordinary dandelion. The small thicket will rise out of the cluster, and its mortal enemy, the weeds, will be unable to get at it. The soil underneath is more moist, and the dew remains in its depths until midday—it has its own microclimate. . . .
>The cluster sowing of kok-saghyz has been practised for a number-of years already, and Lysenko considers that he has a right to draw the conclusion: “in this case, the question of intraspecific competition does not exist for agricultural practice."
>The cluster-sowing method rapidly spread throughout the country and, as the textbooks on plant breeding say, has become the chief method of growing kok-saghyz.
>The cluster-sowing method has resulted in an increase in yield (taking the returns of the plantations on which this method is employed on a large scale) not of “so much per cent,” but of several hundred per cent.
>Formerly, the average yield of kok-saghyz root (for the sake of the milky sap of which this plant is cultivated) did not exceed 4-5 centners per hectare. Before the war, the kolkhozniks in the Sumy Region harvested an average of 13.9 centners per hectare, and in one district in the Kiev Region 16.5 centners. This was regarded as a record, and bigger yields were obtained only in very small plots.
>But today, in the postwar period, the kolkhozes that have adopted the cluster-sowing method are harvesting 20 and 30 centners of roots per hectare. Crops of 40-50 centners per hectare are not rare, and scores of kolkhozes have achieved the record of 100 centners and over.

>>2757075
>We had almost grown accustomed to very frequent complaints about the poor germination of seed in the northern and eastern regions. There were cases when in sowings of spring wheat, barley and oats, barely one grain in three sprout¬ ed. And this was not due to the spoiling of the grain by bad storage.
>And so, in one visible phenomenon—the fact that the seed did not sprout—Lysenko began to- discern two very different, diametrically opposite phenomena. Seed may not sprout because it had lost its power of germination; and also because it had not yet acquired it.
>[…]
>There is nothing mysterious in this. It is simply that the nutritive substances in them are not yet in a soluble, assimilable state. Their thick, compact husks prevent the entry of air, sometimes of air and moisture. If at least a tiny part of the husk is removed, then, in warmth and moisture, the germ’s food inside will be "properly cooked.”
>But since there are two kinds of absence of germination, how important it is quickly to distinguish one from the other! What we have just said above enables this to be done. Take a hundred or so of the grains of the given consignment, steep them in water to make them swell, remove a fragment of the husk from the germ with a needle—if the seed is alive it will sprout at once. . . .
>[…]
>And so, in the first grim years of the war, under the direction of Academician T. D. Lysenko, the revival of the seemingly dead seeds was begun on a mass scale. The barns were cleared out. The seeds were spread out in thin layers on the open ground and the spring breezes swept over them.
>The warmth roused them from their slumber. And when planted, the germinating ability of the seeds rose from thirty to ninety, and in many cases to a hundred per cent. This is what happened in the kolkhozes and sovkhozes in the Chelyabinsk Region, in Kazakhstan, and in Siberia.
>And Lysenko, who had here entered a new sphere which nobody had explored in any detail—the biology of the seed, the life of the seed—was already musing: "Agricultural science must devise a method of compelling the seeds of weeds to sprout quickly under field conditions, after which it will be possible to destroy them easily by one or other method of soil cultivation.” The biological clue to this is a deep study of the seed's rest period. “This is greatly needed for practical purposes. . …"
>It was greatly needed also because the revival of seed was not only a problem for the North. It was also a problem for the South, where summer planting had vanquished senility in potatoes. There, the problem was called: the planting of freshly-harvested tubers. But freshly-harvested tubers refuse to sprout in the same year. They have their own cycle of rest and development that had been worked out by the entire history of the plant’s life. They "sleep” until the next year, when a new potato generation will grow from them. Methods of rousing the dormant tubers had already been devised before the war. In 1941, experimental plots planted with freshly-harvested tubers occupied a total area of five thousand hectares (in Transcaucasia and Central Asia).
>The task now was to employ these methods on a much more extensive scale.
>[…]
>Before the potatoes were peeled and put into the pot, the "tops”—small parts with an "eye," were cut off; and these “tops” proved to be excellent seed. There is 'Scarcely anybody in our country now who is not familiar with the "tops” method of planting potatoes and has not employed it; and it can be said without exaggeration that this method provided food for millions of people during the grim years of the war.
>[…]
>Everybody could plant “tops." But Lysenko saw in this method not only “almost unlimited possibilities of increasing supplies of potato seed,” but also confirmation of his own conception of the life of plants.
>Nobody, as a rule, plants large-size potatoes for seed. It seems a waste to do so; and besides, what a tremendous weight of potatoes per hectare would have to be used. Even average-size potatoes are rarely used for this purpose. As everybody knows, seed potatoes are small. It makes no difference, the variety, the "gene" is the same in small and in large potatoes—so the Morganists taught.
>But Lysenko did not agree with this; this business of “balancing the gene account" may apply to office bookkeeping", but not to life, he argued. Large-size potatoes are etter for planting; they possess stronger reproduction power than small ones.
>With the "tops” method it is possible to use this stronger "reproduction power” of large-size potatoes for seed without depriving the housewife of any of her food stocks. The "top” of a 15o-gram potato "will, as a rule, produce a larger yield than a whole potato weighing 40-50 grams. . . .”

>>2756998
>>2756990
Id agree the assigning great man theory is silly here, most of what im saying is meant to counter the slander against him with the blood libel and also to address that he was a completely pseudoscientist, he did do some things that advanced our knowledge of science.

Also that we should acknowledge the historical context for all of the stuff happening to the USSR in 1940-1946, it would have put insane pressures on everyone and I think its why things happened the way they did.

>>2757178
>also to address that he was a completely pseudoscientist, he did do some things that advanced our knowledge of science.
this is fair. kinda how newton advanced physics but was also a schizo who believed in alchemy and numerology, porky who traded stocks, and an aristocrat who executed poor people.

retards dont know lysenko was more of a rival of luther burbank than of gregor mendel

>>2756964
guess that makes two then huh?

>>2757301
yeah i don't get the random hate for mendel. it's like yeah, he was using punnet squares before DNA was discovered. who cares.

>>2757302
not really

>>2756863
>does a cat meme
>says a word meme
>doesn't elaborate

>>2756981
(reposting this with the corrections and without the seperate comments. Seeing them seperate and the og comment still having errors was making me unhappy. Sorry if the reposting annoys people, I should check more before i repost lol)

>Few industrialized countries of the time faced agricultural conditions as severe as those in many parts of the Soviet Union, which is why US factory farming could always rely on monocultures artificial fertilizers, outside of crises like the dust bowl

But few still did. The canadian praries (canada), negev desert (israel), scandinivia + iceland, and mexico alongside other places had areas which had brutal agricultural conditions. The canadian praries for example was very comparable to the soviet unions agricultural and climate conditions.

A scientist by the name of dr charles used mendelian genetics to create marquis wheat. It turned canada including the canadian praries into a bread basket. In other words a place (canada) which rejected lysenko expirenced similar agricultural growth that the soviet union did

You can hear similar stories of OTHER scientists using mendelian genetics to develop very good crops. Scientists from the other countries than canada who made crops for their respective countries. Crops that could survive their respective countries difficult and bad agricultural areas.

>For one Lysenkoist policy drove the creation of a lot of new varieties.

How much of this is exclusive to lysenko and how much of this is just the natural scientific discoveries that happens in industrial societies. Other industrial societies which rejected lysenko and used mendelian genetics ended up also creating a lot of new crop varieties. For example, the green revolution was associated with lots of new varieties of crops. Thousands of new crop varieties were made

>directly resulted in the discovery of Kok-Saghyz cluster planting, which made the plant a viable source of natural rubber from 1931 to 1950, and the "tops" method for potatos

I need some recent sources on this regarding its succes. From what I recall, the top method for potatos, the cluster planting, and the natural rubber extraction had dissapointing results. Either they produced very low yields (top methods for potatos), killed each other (trees in cluster planting), or had exaggerated results and were eventually replaced with synthetic rubber or south east asian natural rubber. (rubber)
Can you present me a recent source that wasnt from 1951?

>>2757838
>i can make shit up but you cant!
>>2755753
>They see it as undermining the legacy of the USSR and Stalin, which they defend unconditionally.

>>2757888
>How much of this is exclusive to lysenko and how much of this is just the natural scientific discoveries that happens in industrial societies.
Why do you implicitly accept the anti-communist propaganda that the soviet union was a unilateral one man dictatorship?

>A scientist by the name of dr charles used mendelian genetics
oh yeah? How much of this is exclusive to dr charles and mendelian genetics and how much of this is just the natural scientific discoveries that happens in industrial societies?

>>2757994
>Why do you implicitly accept the anti-communist propaganda that the soviet union was a unilateral one man dictatorship?

the premise of the other guys comment was about lysenko policy. So I referred to lysenko>>2756990

>How much of this is exclusive to dr charles and mendelian genetics and how much of this is just the natural scientific discoveries that happens in industrial societies?

except it happened over and over again. Charles is not the only example of mendelian genetics working. Theres a pattern of succesful mendel crops.

And thats besides the point. The point being that if lysenkoist policy was truly right, then the mendelian examples should not have occured. A big part of why lysenko was called pseudo is because he rejected mendel genetics.
The fact mendel works shows lysenko policy was flawed.

Now im willing to admit perhaps lysenko had figured out some correct stuff. After all mendel could be right about stuff and lysenko could be right about some others
but as i said here:
<I need some recent sources on this regarding its succes. From what I recall, the top method for potatos, the cluster planting, and the natural rubber extraction had dissapointing results. Either they produced very low yields (top methods for potatos), killed each other (trees in cluster planting), or had exaggerated results and were eventually replaced with synthetic rubber or south east asian natural rubber. (rubber)
Can you present me a recent source that wasnt from 1951?

can you present me a recent source which shows it was succesful. Im willing to read it

>>2758053
>could be right about stuff and lysenko could be right about some others
could be right about A LOT OF stuff and lysenko could be right about some others

>>2758053
again its very strange to me that you maintain this position when the main tenets of mendels theory have been proven outright incorrect and his main contributions are an exception to what is now the rule.

you just implicitly accept that "genetics" as a field has a throughline with minor imperfections and course corrections to arrive at the current model, when in reality its essentially been essentially completely overturned and whats left is deeply intertwined with proposals that are closer to what lysenko thought.

and youre using "mendelian" as shorthand for something it doesnt represent and didnt claim, giving him credit for something he had nothing to do with and made no contribution to. while also using "lysenko policy" or "lysenkoism" as a distinct school of thought, when that is anti-communist propaganda. "lysenkoism" is an scare word against totally normal soviet biology and not the policy of of an individual person.

>>2758098
> "lysenkoism" is an scare word
ok so we should just have soviet biology threads instead of "let's debate lysenkoism" threads

>>2758099
sounds great

>>2758098
>and youre using "mendelian" as shorthand for something it doesnt represent and didnt claim, giving him credit for something he had nothing to do with and made no contribution to.

what? lets look at the charles example

"Mendel's investigations were well known to me before the year 1903 and all my work since then has been conducted in the light of his valued conclusions"
-charles

In the dr charles example he straight out admits that he used mendal's investigations and conclusions. His wheat expirements was also created shortly after he went to International Conference on Plant Breeding and Hybridization, where he learned mendels ideas and works.

"The remarkable work of Mendel has thrown a new light on the whole subject of plant breeding… we are now able to conduct our experiments with a degree of precision and a certainty of results that were previously impossible."
summary of the 1902 international conference proceedings (newman an argonimist who worked with charles)

Mendal ideas and works contributed heavily to dr charles wheat crop. Which later turned canada into a breadbasket.

>again its very strange to me that you maintain this position when the main tenets of mendels theory have been proven outright incorrect and his main contributions are an exception to what is now the rule.

>you just implicitly accept that "genetics" as a field has a throughline with minor imperfections and course corrections to arrive at the current model, when in reality its essentially been essentially completely overturned and whats left is deeply intertwined with proposals that are closer to what lysenko thought.

this is an extreme take but Im going to do some further research on this first before replying

>>2758099
He personally named himself a Michurinist after the famous Russian biologist he drew many of his ideas from.


Unique IPs: 17
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ Return / Go to top /