[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble

| Catalog | Home

 No.326202[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Please come back Rusanon Comrades! Save us from the polyp and lolbert raids.

Я вас категорически приветствую.

- A westoid who misses you.
196 posts and 24 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.407329

>>407318
>I bet you have been on this board less than a month. From the start it was a predominantly communist board. And many communist don't care for being called "leftist" because frankly "left" means fuck all while "communist" has a specific meaning.
But it has lefty in the name dude. Why, are you scared of calling yourself a "leftist"?
>>

 No.407340

>>407329
Boy, aren't you retarded. Just go back to /pol/.
>>

 No.407345

>>407340
What, is this the level of understanding you have? You can't explain your thoughts in a clear, short and unambiguous way?
>>

 No.407461

>>

 No.409292



File: 1627412125274.jpg ( 75.2 KB , 750x1000 , flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x10….jpg )

 No.405307[Reply]

Ever since Musk and Bezos has been making news about their space program it seems as if people across the world have been revitalized in their love of billionaires. I guess all porky needed to do to kick the sails of the left is to fund space theatrics…Just look at this https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/billionaire-space-race has eradicated all class consciousness in the youth.
47 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.407279

I love benzos
>>

 No.407301

>>406927
Been thinking how much easier it would be to unionize if everything was owned by just one guy.
Might be a blessing in disguise.
>>

 No.407316

>>407301
Welcome to accelerationism.
>>

 No.407465

>>406943
How did it become this way?
>>

 No.409241

>>407465
Mostly American userbase. They are big on FOE, which has to do with many memes are offensive. Think South Park but as a website.

Side note - The site itself covers memes outside of anglosphere (besides Japan) in recent years.


 No.407607[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

How do you refute the claim made by oh-so-virtuous reactionaries that Marxism is a "philosophy of envy" in the sense that communists (or workers in general) only seek to control the means of production and seize the wealth of the rich because they are envious of the rich?

Did Marx and Engels ever express envy of the rich for having too much in their writings? And if they did, was it not just a means of mobilizing workers to revolt?

Please refute the dumb b1tch in the video for me please.
99 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.408973

>>407607
I dont want to be the rich or live like them. I want them dead so those parasites stop controlling how we work, where we live and how we live. I want to live in a workers democracy, not in 20 room mansion.
>>

 No.408991

i am envious of some things! for example, i'm envious that bourgeois can choose to live on any neighborhood they like no matter how stupid the prices are, something that all workers will be able to do once we abolish rent.
I'm envious that the bourgeosie have access to expensive advanced medicine, something that all workers can access once we abolish private medicine.
I'm envious that, instead of living in a world where everyone has an equal opportunity and can sustain themselves, i live in a world where millions and millions of people suffer daily and then get told that they deserve it for being lazy.
In such a circumstance, envy seems perfectly rational.
>>

 No.409069

>>407657
This line of thinking is the reason why our ideas are so unpopular, comrade. If we can't prove them wrong, then what is even the point?
>>

 No.409071

>>409069
>our ideas are so unpopular, comrade. If we can't prove them wrong,
hmm who could be behind this post oink oink
>>

 No.409236

>>408973
Based.


File: 1627436792427.jpg ( 81.13 KB , 1079x888 , Face the wall.jpg )

 No.406060[Reply]

Who gets the wall after the revolution? Seems like an important topic that crops up from time to time, might as well have a serious discussion on the matter.
53 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.409038

>>

 No.409042

>>408921
<former poltards
>more like former MSM worshipper
>>

 No.409060

>>406060
My ex and my step-dad.
>>

 No.409104

>>406862
>BLM is based even if capitalism tried to coopt it
How do you coopt something you yourself produced?
>>

 No.409107

>>409038
I mean, for every Koch brother or Bezos there's a dozen of gentlemen/ladies-of-leisure who don't "work" at all, even as a whimsy, but near-literally lie on their laurels and let some CEO's (or similar hired bosses/management firms) take care of running their properties. Or they have somebody who takes care of that somebodies take care of said properties. Properties they likely know very little of, or care to.
Some have some bullshit title in some big company belonging to a friend or themselves just as a decoration to masturbate with at social events. But doing things is still just a game for them, life is a game. They can do literally nothing whenever they like to.

As such, many are lazy, often practically uneducated, and ignorant of the so-called "real world", so I can't see any greater justice than them having to actually work for their living for a change, like the rest of us have. Yes, they'll whine at first, loudly, but getting bog-standard normal treatment feels like oppression to the privileged, it is said.
Just killing them would, to me, be wasteful. Many have grown up in a bubble, and while others will never be reformed, giving them the opportunity to learn by shattering their illusions and the distance they've had to the rest of society would without question yield interesting results. Ignorance and stupidity are two very different things, after all.
And they ought to have a working pair of hands, right? Why not put them to use?


File: 1627412172416-0.png ( 706.35 KB , 962x701 , ClipboardImage.png )

File: 1627412172416-1.png ( 329.43 KB , 650x431 , ClipboardImage.png )

 No.405308[Reply]

The Japanese army killed around 200,000 people in the course of 1 month during the Nanjing Massacre (this is a commonly accepted figure among historians. The massacre occured at the beginning of 1938. If they had kept this up in the territory they occupied until, let's say, 1944, then they would have killed around 12 million people disregarding deaths of combatants. The nature of the crimes committed during the Rape of Nanjing were also much more severe than any of the other war crimes and atrocities committed during WWII (yes, even the holocaust). So why were the nips never held accountable for their war crimes? Was it solely because the US needed a bulwark against Communism in East Asia? Part of me feels sympathy for and indigence over those killed during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but another part of me thinks that the US and the USSR should have reduced the islands of Japan to nuclear craters, or at least every single Japanese soldier should have been killed.So why were the nips never held accountable for their war crimes?
19 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.409018

>>408988
>>408990
>>408980
>>408957
You guys have to die awful deaths
>>

 No.409031

>>408608
Omega based, thanks again anon. I've read halfway through the first book and it's mindblowing. I always knew Imperial Japan was depraved, but holy fuck.
>>

 No.409035

>>409018
Don't lump me in with those idiots.
>>

 No.409037

>>409035
Sorry if you are guy who posted the Twitter thread.
>>

 No.409045

>>405308
>So why were the nips never held accountable for their war crimes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East


File: 1627519063366.jpg ( 80.15 KB , 1024x541 , 1627517911435m.jpg )

 No.408084[Reply]

Will this be in our history books?
Did this even mean anything or was it just a funny little thing that happened after a tweet one morning?

Personally I stayed awake to the early hours of the morning to watch it happen live and thought it was so cool seeing the first American president step foot into north Korea by himself and north Korean president meet him in a sign of rare diplomacy that just looked pure away from political bullshit
12 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.408788

File: 1627546234592.png ( 2.67 MB , 1204x825 , nix&brez.PNG )

>>408084
It will be viewed no differently than any other small foreign policy deviation in modern US history.

I really don't know where people get this idea that this was such a crazy move by Trump. Meaningless symbolic things such as this are par for the course for Neoliberal politicians, just look at the Obama administration and Cuba, or Richard Nixon and Detente. All of these were rolled over as soon as the US thought they weren't worth it anymore.

Biden is already putting the heat back on Cuba after their little color revolution thing recently.
>>

 No.408849

>>408742
>Political figures need to train how to play a role like a movie actor
Well that is true if politicians are just puppets, but if they are actually making decisions, fuck posturing, they better know shit about how the world works.
>>

 No.408852

>>408742
Training would cause awareness about posture, awareness would cause doubt about the same, doubt just makes it worse.
He needs someone/people to instill confidence before such photo moments, and he probably already got that.
>>

 No.408877

Kim comes off the amiable and chill one though.
>>

 No.408996

>>408106
Wow man that's such a unique take, thanks for sharing


File: 1627215945650.png ( 413.14 KB , 511x595 , ayys.png )

 No.400517[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

The left, from left-liberals and social demcrats to the hard left (Marxists, Anarchists) have a pretty similar conception of "the elites" as the bourgeoisie, a marxist or at least vulgar-marxist definition: wealthy people and corporations that have disproportionate power over society.

What does the right mean by elites? It's actually difficult to pin down. The meaning is protean and the two groups actually don't agree on who the "elites" actually are.

Can anyone tell me what rightoids actually mean when they say the "elite"? because they don't seem to have it mean the same thing as the left
271 posts and 27 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.406585

The “elite” is normally, not always, just a weasel word used by grifters to skewer their “bad guy” of the month.
When used substantively, it normally denotes the bourgeoisie and their emissaries.
I don’t use the term because I think it’s way less useful than actually naming bourgeoisie or whoever is working for them.
>>

 No.406688

>>406493
>In the West?Yes but a specific haute bourgeois segment is predominant and has been for over a century. In China it is party rule by a managerial class.
There is no such thing as a managerial class. Its either bourgeoisie in nature, or its not.
>Exactly.The idea that the masses/proles can ever rule in any system is fantasy.Some elite or other will always rule.The question is how to ensure the most competent and benign one.
Completely missed the point. Proles having control of the system doesn't literally mean every single prole being inside the government building at all times. By the metric you are using, nobody but the people actually appointed to government rule it, and your earlier premise of bourgeoisie domination (which we both agreed upon) is rendered null. "Elites" are also not a class.
>Wrong. It is about rejecting your claims to the contrary as without substance and worthless.
How is it without substance, and if you truly aren't arguing in defense of innate universal meaning, what are you arguing for?
>That IS the logical conclusion of your position.Relativism and ultimately nihilism.
Nope. Relativism also does not inherently lead to nihilism, and even you should know philosophically the branching paths from relativism, especially the different kinds. Nowhere does relativism imply full blown Nihilism in the sense that even constructed meaning in pointless.
>A premise admittedly based on nothing ie something you're in no position to know ie a worthless assertion without evidence
The burden of proof is to show is on those you disagree to show anything more. It being nothing is the default position, as that is the default position for all other things in reality we make claims towards the existence for. We don't say unicorns exist, and then go out attempting to disprove their existence. Their existence must first be presented with proof.
>Marxists are incoherent so nothing would surprise me.You act like a nominalist.
I am not a nominalist, and nothing I stated was incoherent. Being a nominalist or being a realist are not the only two positions, and good chunk of the 18th to 19th century was attempting to come to terms with the issues of both and resolve them.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>

 No.406690

>>406688
*The burden of proof is on those who disagree to show anything more.
>>

 No.408860

>>408386
>Denial is not an argument.There is. Furthermore even the bourgeoisie dominant PMC in the west is already at odds with much of the industrial bourgeois. But as usual marxists insist on denial and mental gymnastics in a vain attempt to cram reality into their low resolution binary class model.
Class is something which is determined by a relation to production and mechanisms of the system. It is not whenever any kind of division forms among any group of people you retard.
>Not what I'm saying at all. The government is subject to incentives by non-government elites who wield inordinate influence ie the ruling elite extends beyond government. The masses/proles have virtually none. Ultimately a minority/elite will always rule (directly or indirectly) the masses.Thus it has been and always will be.
As stated before, "Elites" are not a class, and the claim of "has been" in no way assumes that it always will be. For example, how does an "elite" incentives the government when the conditions to create those "elites" does not exist, when there exists no medium to create such incentive, and when the govenment itself is structured in such a way that there exists no way to actually influence policy makers due to the system itself superceding the need for them?
>You should consider reading Gaetano Mosca ,Vilfredo Pareto,Bertrand de Jouvenel and other Elite theorists for a better understanding of this subject
No, becuase what you are discussing has no actual concrete materialist basis to it, at least not any sufficient one. To bring up Pareto tells me that most of your "theory" is probably just whatever you felt like reading up one because you desired to firstly refute Marxism rather then investigate it. Pareto's observation was only that 20% controlled most of the land, he made no larger analysis on how they came to control that land, and what system inevitably resulted in such conditions. He simply took it at face value and assumed it to be a "natural" state of things, as opposed to a result of deeper mechanisms which warranted investigation, which makes him no different then most bourgeoisie economists. Even then, he is largely still incorrect in regards to the economy, as if Victor Yakovenko's work is to be trusted, the majority of the economy does not operate off of the "Pareto principle", but is rather a "BoltzmPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>

 No.408865

it's all downstream of America's pseudo-egalitarian ethos. "The elite" are the "people who think they're better than you", smug liberal academics and the like. Unlike George Bush, who's the kind of guy you could have a beer with (as he holds his tongue about thinking you're subhuman vermin.)

it is one reason I am in a small sense grateful for the last holdouts of the British social class system. in America the classes are delineated purely by income - their social function is haphazardly offloaded onto race. The result is that working class whites expect not to be spoken down to by upper class whites, while in Britain it's taken as a matter of course that the upper class wouldn't take the time of day to speak to the lower class, and that if one should accidentally fall up the income spectrum, the overall result is almost always to turn them into a sort of outcaste, ill at ease with those who were born in a higher station, but no longer able to relate to those they grew up with. This may sound worse, but it's a far stronger base for building class politics than America's formal equality combined with gigantic material inequality.


File: 1627539546022-1.jpg ( 147.68 KB , 640x364 , Dday.jpg )

File: 1627539546022-2.jpg ( 72.15 KB , 605x449 , defeat.jpg )

File: 1627539546022-3.jpg ( 391.78 KB , 1200x800 , Soviet offensive through E….jpg )

File: 1627539546022-4.jpg ( 508.58 KB , 1920x1080 , The day of Liberation.jpg )

 No.408692[Reply]

The defeat of the Soviet's at the end of the Cold war requires we communists to analyze and deduce what alternative actions may have been taken to achieve a better course of history, one where there was no collapse of the socialist camp, and instead a complete victory over the capitalists. I want to focus this thread specifically on the Course of events of the Second world war, and the geopolitical and strategic decisions made by the USSR. Bonus points for avoiding muh great man theory.

I will start: I am convinced that a faction of the Soviet high command that was aware of the events at Tehran should have secretly tipped off the Germans about the DDay landings. They could frame nazi collaborators int the western militaries and send secret diplomatic cables to the Germans convincing them that the leak was from sympathisers in the Soviet military that wanted a Soviet exit from the war and non aggression pact to contain the west. The latter would likely be uncovered at the latest by the end of the war so they would have to frame the West for this as well.

Why do this all? The Soviets had largely defeated the nazi menace on their own in the East and the western front was an attempt by the "allies" to swoop in like a gizzard and eat as much of the collapsing German empire as possible in order to deny it to Germany. Instead Germany would move divisions west fortify the defenses, they are prepared. The allied forces land and are massacred. Almost instantly over a hundred thousand of soldiers lay dead on the beaches, and in shallow waterborne graves, none had managed to make it far past the waterline. The west is shocked, the Army and the civilians are flooded with images of dead troops and the complete defeat of the western advance that had been planned for years. This plan the fools of the west made behind their nations back has sent their young men to the butchers. The west is made to learn the true cost of war. The people are thrown into a rage and the western imperialists geopolitical and strategic power is crippled. The Germans celebrate this small victory and try and gain some concessions from Moscow, however seeing as they are now truly fighting alone, and yet rapidly pouring into the German interior, they will not accept anything other than total and complete victory. They reach Berlin and the German army falls into complete chaos. Much of the Nazi and puppet administration has abandoned their posts and only the most fanatical or despePost too long. Click here to view the full text.
7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.408737

>>408736
>literally no lessons can be learned though past events and applying the lessons received from praxis

Enlightened being
>>

 No.408753

File: 1627544283061.jpg ( 223.4 KB , 1024x683 , Soviet monument.jpg )

Does anyone have any critiques or speculation pertaining to the strategic value and feasibility of this idea?
>>

 No.408757

>>408737
There's a difference between learning from the past and restaging WW2
>>

 No.408758

File: 1627544575680.jpg ( 36.59 KB , 854x570 , sees your shitty faux cyri….jpg )

>>408756
>iigger
>>

 No.408759

>>408757
are you always this much of a wet blanket?


File: 1627238180815.jpg ( 223.69 KB , 919x1191 , makhno.jpg )

 No.401287[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Nestor Makhno died on this day (July 25th) 87 years ago. Say something nice about him.
146 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.407680

>>407649
Grover Furr is bullet proof though. Hes always clear where he is "hypothesising", he provides clear references that have always checked out and he states his persuasion (that hes a communist) but insists he tries his best to stay neutral

And regarding his references he ALWAYS provides an English translation on the same page of what hes discussing so you dont have to dig through some obscure archive to find out that the Ukrainian source used was obscure Ukrainian nazi collaborators who republished a translation of a Nazi newspaper.
Or some obscure journal in Polish that actually doesnt say what is claimed or ignores the previous passage which invalidates the implied claim etc.

Tactics Western 'historians' do literally all the time

Whenever anyone posts a " rebuttle" of Furr its usually that schizo post on /r/armchair historians or that trot page which makes zero fucking sense and ignores all the discoveries of the 80s onward
And i say that as someone who first read Furr actively thinking the dude was a complete crank

Its why theres no takedown of Furr
How hard would it be for a historian to do a take down of Furr like Taugar did of Anne Applebaum where he goes through her footnotes and just calls her a straight up liar again and again
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/169438
>>

 No.407699

>>407668
I believe the Bolsheviks in part because they’re historically trustworthy, but mostly because anarchists can easily be observed as barely functioning babies so it’s pretty easy to believe the Free Territory turned into bandit hell
>>

 No.407735

>>407054
>do anarchists think that ML states literally decide everything centrally?
No. And deciding things centrally isn't the problem. The problem is of accountability and responsiveness to the public. If the public can recall officials and reverse their decisions then the "authority" is with the people. The issue arises when there are things that are out of the people's control for one reason or another and cynical people or groups are able to use that to leverage more power for themselves. This can be a problem at a national or a local level, although the higher up the chain it goes the harder it is for the people to combat usually given the scale.

>>407063
>but you can't deny with increased power of the vanguard, and the neglect of popular democratic vote to have the soviet union maintain itself (with the gov choosing to dissolve it) was in part to its centralised governance.
Exactly this. The fall of the USSR was one of the greatest tragedies in world history and it wouldn't have happened if it had organized things in a more anarchic way. Shit's not black and white. The more power the people have the better it is, and if the USSR really wanted to live up to the "state withering away" they should have done the opposite of this and "de-centralized" or rather distributed more and more political power to the people. Of course, the reason they didn't do this isn't a moral or ideological one but a material one, since it's in the nature of a state to cling to power and try to accumulate it. There's also the factor of competition with the west, but I don't believe that empowering Soviet citizens would have weakened the USSR in that way, especially after decades of developing the political project. If there's a time where the "you need authoritarian power to not get destroyed" applies, it's going to be in the earlier and more perilous periods. The problem is that over time having a system where a minority of people have concentrated power it will attract (or produce) people who will exploit that power for their own gain. It's not guaranteed to be ruinous but the longer that situation persists the greater the chances of your project backsliding toward a system where a minority of people Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>

 No.408590

>>407735
>If the public can recall officials and reverse their decisions then the "authority" is with the people
based and democracy pilled. this is why I say anarchists have useful critiques
>>

 No.408708

>>401287
He literally was a bandit lord. Anarchists upholding him for any reason is extremely cringe


File: 1627522539475.jpeg ( 8.95 KB , 193x261 , download (6).jpeg )

 No.408161[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

The birth of liberal capitalism was driven out of a need to separate away from feudalistic society where empires were in perpetual war with each other and society was split between the masses that were exploited to create material wealth to fund elites and foreign wars, people saw what kind of a world that was and wanted out of it, a world where they could live their lives the way they wanted to and build whatever they desired and hence capitalism and libertarian ethics would be a ground base for the united states, it wasnt perfect but the country became more and more progressive and more and more liberal as time passed compared to the rest of the planet and likewise that progressiveness eventually spread to the rest of earth. What china is doing today is repeating the same mistakes of the USSR, empire building. Peoples rights are getting trampled on, most chinese citizens live on 10-15 dollars a DAY that's less than several african countries and china has made repeated offenses that have been disastrous worldwide including their worst offence of manufacturing a covid virus that would go on to lead to millions of deaths worldwide, trillions of damage to financial and material assets, billions of lives ruined driven by unemployment and the mass closure of large and small buissnesses, I wish it was the only offence but when they invaded vietnam, threatened to nuke china and then went on to commit Tiananmen square an event that only the most brainwashed pro china shills can honestly defend it's hard to state that they're better than their western counterparts. China currently is expanding its nuclear base due to security problems it faced after mass lockdowns leading to an immediate shitstorm of hate directed at it and the CCP would go on to use nationalism and defence spending as a way to counter that criticism, likewise this increasing arms race is pushing the planet closer and closer to another cold war where socialist expansion in the form of propaganda and direct invasion is resurging again, we only barely escaped nuclear fallout due to repeated luck on both sides to prevent nukes from being launched from false alarms. I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHOSE IN THE RIGHT OR IF SOCIALISM OR CAPITALISM ARE BEGGER, IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, NO ONE and I repeat NO ONE should have to live in a situation like this and the blatant displays of fanaticism towards pushing socialism and pro chinese expansionism is so strong and invasive that it's becoming a global security Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
163 posts and 28 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.408673

>>408663
What's the mudpie argument again? It's so stupid I usually forget it instantly.
>>

 No.408678

>>408673
>“Imagine you spend hours and hours of time working to make a mud pie. Would it be worth more for the labor you had put into it? Of course not, because no matter how hard you work to make a mud pie, it is still a mud pie, regardless of how much or how little time you put into something. There is no demand for mud pies, and if someone needed one, they could make it themselves, because mud isn’t in short supply.”
or something like that
>>

 No.408942

>>408184
>not even america whom holds the most nukes worldwide made decisions that unbelievably reckless you fucking moron
<NK_will_be_met_with_fire_and_fury-Trump.mp4
>>

 No.408955

>>408161
The birth of liberal capitalism came to Britain in the late 18th century and spread to Europe after the Napoleonic wars. Most of the capitalist countries where monarchies up until the first world war, and many still are. Meanwhile imperialism didn't decline with capitalism it increased. There's a whole era of history called new imperialism that involved capitalist empire building in Africa and Asia, these empires didn't end until world war 2, they are still technically in living memory. The libertarian movement didn't act as a unified movement until the 1970's, although there libertarian thinkers like Rand who came before the party did, and they're a still a mostly irrelevant third party in the USA. To say that after the birth capitalism people suddenly had an epiphany that we should all just be free and not oppress others is completely ahistoric.

China has eliminated extreme poverty by western metics. The lab that is theorized to be the origin of the virus was funded by the USA.
>China threatened to nuke China
????
The arms race was started by the USA who has ripped up deals like the one giving to iran sanction relief there is no reason for china not to respond and no reason for them to trust the USA. I am not particularly pro china but this is just a smear post against china 90% of this post is just baseless smears and placing blame on China where it isn't deserved. There is serious discussion to be had on China about rising inequality demographic concerns and environmental policy among other things but this isn't it.
>>

 No.408956

>>408228
The only country to ever nuke a foreign country was the USA.


Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
[ 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