NÃO ao fascismo no Brasil!!!
Bolsonaro, NÃO!!!
PAI! Afasta de nós esse cálice, Pai!
On the public side of things, Russia’s decision to deploy the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria has made Israeli officials apoplectic. That said, Israel’s security establishment were privy to prospects of a possible Russian deployment of the modern, more discriminating air-defence system. The former head of the Israeli Defence Force’s Strategic Division, Brigadier General Assaf Orion at the Institution for National Security Studies, was reflective. “However one may keep in mind that for the last twenty years Israel was preparing for this to appear in theatre.”
In April, Amos Yadlin, the country’s retired Military Intelligence chief stuck his head out to issue a warning: should Russia supply Syria with S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, Israel’s air force would retaliate. Israel Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman also upped the ante, suggesting that Israel would destroy any S-300 targeting Israeli aircraft. Would Russia call’s Israel’s bluff?
Any indecision on Russia’s part evaporated in the aftermath of the downing of a Russian Il-20 surveillance plane by Syrian government forces on September 17, leading to the death of 15 personnel. The Syrian action had been prompted by attacks from Israeli F-16 jets on facilities in the province of Latakia.
In the words of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, “It is a system which is defensive in nature rather than offensive, and is intended for the defence of the Syrian airspace.” Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu has only praise for the batteries, which are “capable of intercepting aerial attacks at the distance of over 250 kilometres, and simultaneously countering several targets”. Deploying it was a necessary “retaliatory” measure.
The tone, at this point, has become far more reserved on Israel’s part. While Moscow “made a move, the playing field is very large,” came an unnamed Israeli official’s view. Israel was “dealing” with the aftermath of the decision made by President Vladimir Putin, but would “not necessarily” attempt “to prevent the delivery” of the anti-aircraft system. This stands to reason: the presence of other Russian missile systems in the Syrian conflict – the S-400, for instance – did not deter Israel’s previous strikes; nor did it cause much by way of open remonstration. Symbolism is everything.
Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, was impressed by Moscow’s move. Israel’s regional bullying would finally, at least in some fashion, be contained. “For the first time in years another state is making it clear to Israel that there are restrictions to its power, that it’s not okay for it to do whatever it wants, that it’s not alone in the game, that America can’t always cover for it and there’s a limit to the harm that it can do.”
Like other players, Russia and Israel will continue to be careful in avoiding any undue engagements. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has made various utterances to that effect, though the deployment has put him on notice that the Israeli action in Syria can no longer take place with brazen impunity.
Then comes the issue as to which outfits will be manning the batteries. Netanyahu, pushing the familiar line that certain weapons systems are only appropriate in the right hands, sees the S-300 finding its way to “irresponsible players”. Orion fears those “incompetent and reckless” hands fidgeting and firing. On that score, it is unlikely that the Russians intend giving their Syrian recipients full leverage in using the system. At this stage of the conflict, it is clear that Moscow is calling many of the shots in the field, having, for instance, restrained Syrian government forces in launching a blood-soaked offensive on rebel forces in Idlib in favour of an accord with Turkey.
Moves such as the S-300 announcement say less about a conflict that has killed with remorseless drive than it does about the pieces of furniture that keep being moved in one of the most atrocious wars in recent memory. A weapons system is deployed in one place to discourage another “player” from overconfidence and bellicosity; airstrikes are undertaken against the forces of another group or state to nip any growing influence. Brief agreements are brokered, short-term understandings reached. Israel gazes wide-eyed upon the influence of Iran and any umbilical cord to Hezbollah; Turkey watches warily the influence of the Kurds and any overly patriotic tendencies. Syrian soil becomes the staging ground for amoral plays of power.
The critics and observers add to this, using sterile terms that give the impression that states are participants in a robust conversation free of blood, a gentlemen’s dispute rather than a murderous fight to the finish. Syria remains a carcass swarmed over by various enthusiasts, pecking it into cruel oblivion.
"Gideon Levy is a bit of a philosopher king although, sitting in his postage stamp garden in a suburb of Tel Aviv, straw hat shading mischievous dark eyes, there’s a touch of a Graham Greene character about Haaretz’s most provocative and infamous writer. Brave, subversive, sorrowful – in a harsh, uncompromising way – he’s the kind of journalist you either worship or loathe. Philosopher kings of the Plato kind are necessary for our moral health, perhaps, but not good for our blood pressure. So Levy’s life has been threatened by his fellow Israelis for telling the truth; and that’s the best journalism award one can get.
He loves journalism but is appalled by its decline. His English is flawless but it sometimes breaks up in fury. Here’s an angry Levy on the effect of newspaper stories: “In the year of ’86, I wrote about a Palestinian Bedouin woman who lost her baby after giving birth at a checkpoint. She tried at three different [Israeli] checkpoints, she couldn’t make it and she gave birth in the car. They [the Israelis] didn’t let her bring the baby to the hospital. She carried him by foot two kilometres to the Augusta Victoria [Hospital in east Jerusalem]. The baby died. When I published this story – I don’t want to say that Israel ‘held its breath’, but it was a huge scandal, the cabinet was dealing with it, two officers were brought to court…”
Then Levy found ten more women who had lost babies at Israeli checkpoints. “And nobody could care less any more. Today, I can publish it and people will yawn if they read it at all. [It’s] totally normalised, totally justified. We have a justification now for everything. The dehumanisation of the Palestinians has reached a stage in which we really don’t care. I can tell you, really, without exaggeration, if an Israeli dog was killed by Palestinians, it will get more attention in the Israeli media than if 20 Palestinian youngsters would be shot dead by snipers on the fence – without doing anything – in Gaza. The life of Palestinians has become the cheapest thing. It’s a whole system of demonisation, of de-humanisation, a whole system of justification that ‘we’ are always right and we can never be wrong.”
Then Levy goes for the bleeding-heart brigade. “I’m speaking now about liberals. There are those [Israelis] who are happy about any Palestinian death. But the liberals will give you so many arguments just to keep their conscience clean and not to be bothered – ‘You cannot know what happened there, and you have not been there and, you know, you can only see part of the picture…’ And it’s very hard to tell these stories any more, this is the biggest frustration. They see snipers killing a child waving. On TV they show it, snipers killing a nurse in her uniform, a pretty nurse. They see a child of 15 slapping a soldier and going to jail for eight months. And they justify everything.”
You can see why, not too long ago, Levy was given a bodyguard. “You know, Robert, for so many years, they told me: ‘Try to be a little bit more moderate… Say some patriotic things. Say some good things about Israel.’ You know, by the end of the day, we say and we write what we think, and we don’t think about the consequences. And I must tell you, very frankly, the price that a Russian or Turkish journalist is paying today is much higher than any price. Let’s not exaggerate. By the end of the day, I’m still a free citizen and I still gain total freedom, and I mean it: total freedom to write whatever I want, mainly because of my newspaper – which is so supportive.”
“You know, my publisher is maybe the only publisher in the world who is ready to pay millions in terms of cancellations for one article that I wrote, who would tell any subscriber who is mad at me: ‘You know what? Maybe Haaretz is not the newspaper for you!’ Give me one publisher who would speak like this. So I gain full freedom. I say whatever I feel or think.”
Which says something about Israel as well as Levy’s editor. But Israel never escapes his scalpel. “The worst thing that we are fighting is indifference,” he says. “Apathy – which we have so much of in Israel. So if I succeed even to shake them in a way, to freak them out, to be angry with me, to be angry at what I say… you know, many times I think if I make them so angry, it is a sign that somewhere in their consciousness, they know that something is burning under our feet, that something went wrong. But there are times when you are afraid, especially the night before [an article] is published. I always say: ‘Oh, didn’t I go too far this time?’ And then, when I read it back, I always say: ‘I should have been much more extreme!’ I always think I didn’t go far enough.”
Journalism and Israel can be combined in the Levy story. His love-hate relationship with the one can get mixed up with his horror of the path down which his country – to which his parents fled from Europe when it was still Palestine – is now travelling. “The only thing that I really miss – this is very specific to me – my biggest stories were from the Gaza Strip. And I am prevented from going there for 11 years now – because Israel doesn’t let any Israeli into Gaza for 11 years, even if they have dual citizenship. Even if they would open [Gaza], very, very few Israelis would bother to go there. Maybe Hamas would stop them. It’s an Israeli order which Israeli journalists never protested – except me – nobody protested against it. Because they couldn’t care less – they get everything from the [Israeli] army spokesperson – why would they bother to go to Gaza?”
But for Levy, it’s professional. “It’s a very deep loss because the strongest stories were always in Gaza and are still in Gaza. And the fact that I can’t be in Gaza in these days… I mean, I always ask, ‘what is the place you would most like to go to in the world? Bali?’ And I always say the truth. ‘Gaza. Give me one week in Gaza now. And I need nothing more’.”
Blogs don’t have the credibility of newspapers, Levy says. “But I do tell young people – still, if they ask – go ahead. [Journalism] is a great job, a wonderful profession. I didn’t plan to become a journalist. I wanted to become a prime minister. My two first choices were either bus driver or prime minister. Neither worked out somehow. Yes, it’s about leadership. The bus driver is the leader. I mean, you dictate to other people what to do. But I still keep on saying to young people, ‘you will never find such a profession, with so many opportunities. You need only one thing – above all, you need to be curious.’ It’s quite a rare quality, much more rare than you think, because we journalists think that everyone is as curious as we are.”
Pessimism is built into many Israelis, none more so than Levy. “Look, we are dealing now with 700,000 [Jewish] settlers. It is unrealistic to think that anybody will evacuate 700,000 settlers. Without their full evacuation, you don’t have a viable Palestinian state. Everyone knows this and everyone continues with their old songs because it’s convenient to everybody – to the Palestinian Authority, to the EU, to the United States – [saying] ‘two states, two states’, and by this you can continue the occupation for another hundred years, thinking that one day there will be a two-state solution. It will never happen any more. We missed this train and this train will never get back to the station.”
And we come back to Levy on the sins of modern journalism. “Let’s face it – it’s all about social media now. Our journalism is dying. Now it’s all about a very sophisticated tweet. And for a sophisticated tweet, you don’t have to go anywhere – just sitting in your room with a glass of whisky, and you can be very, very sophisticated with some kind of sense of humour, and very cynical – very cynical – because this is maybe the main problem. I mean journalists, so very few of them, really care about something – except being brilliant. I guess there are some exceptions. I don’t see them in Israel. I don’t see them in the West Bank. They are activists but not journalists. There are many young activists, who are adorable.”
Levy agrees that Amira Hass of Haaretz, who lives in the Palestinian West Bank, is his equal, at least in years – he is 65 – and “she really brings journalism one step forward because she lives with them. I think it’s really unprecedented – a journalist who ‘lives with the enemy’. She pays a big price also, in terms of being less relevant here [in Israel] – because of her living there.”
But repeatedly journalism comes under the critical Levy microscope. “We have some young people who would go to war zones – only for the sake of showing their courage. They have been to Iraq, they’ve been to Syria, they’ve been to Iran. Usually, they come back with photos of themselves in the reception of the hotel, or in some kind of so-called battlefield. When I went to Sarajevo in 1993, I went also to look for the injustice there. I didn’t go for just ‘covering the story’. I looked for the ‘evilness’ of a war. I think you saw a lot of evil in Sarajevo. I saw things in Sarajevo that I never saw here – old ladies digging in the ground, for roots to have to eat something. I saw it with my own eyes. Not in the [Israeli] occupied territories – you don’t see it here.”
Foreign correspondents fare little better. “I see journalists, even now, standing by the [Gaza] fence, journalists who can get into Gaza – in those bloody months, with almost 200 unarmed victims – and they stand by the fence, far away. To get into Gaza is not dangerous now for foreign journalists. But I see, even on BBC – and even Al-Jazeera from time to time, Al-Jazeera is much better, obviously – give even their reports from a hill in the south of Israel. And they get some footage, obviously from social media, from local journalists. But it’s not the same.”
As a persistent critic of Israel and the wickedness of its colonial land theft and its vile treatment of the Palestinians, I find myself curiously at odds with Levy – not so much because of his condemnation of journalists, but of his plate-glass shattering of the Israeli window. Would Israeli readers really be more interested in the death of an Israeli dog than the slaughter of 20 Palestinians? Are they as poorly educated as Levy claims? There’s a bit of the “O tempora o mores” element about him.
“Israel is becoming one of the most ignorant countries in the world,” this 65-year old Cicero says. “Someone said it’s better to keep the people ignorant … The young generation know nothing about nothing. Try to talk here with young people – they’ve no idea. The most basic things – ask them who was Ben Gurion, ask them who was Moshe Dayan. Ask them what is the ‘Green Line’. Ask them where is Jenin. Nothing. Even before the brainwashing, the ignorance – part of what they know is totally wrong.”
Talk to the average young Israeli and a European waiter will speak better English, Levy claims. Knowledge of the Holocaust and foreign travel for a young Israeli “will be mainly an experience of a trip with their high school to Auschwitz, where you are being told that power is the only thing which you should possess – military power, that’s the only guarantee, nothing else but military power; and that Israel has the right to do whatever it wants after the Holocaust. These are the lessons. But this is nothing to do with knowledge.”
Yes, says our philosopher king, there is “a narrow level of brilliant intellectuals”, but a recent survey suggested half of Israeli youth receive a Third World education. We – and here I am included in Levy’s generation – came into the world after “very dramatic events”. The Second World War. The foundation, in his case, of the state of Israel. His parents “saved themselves at the last minute”, from Europe.
“There was some historical luggage on our shoulders and no Twitter and no Facebook could delete this. Today it is more empty, finally, in terms of historical events. Even in this region. What is happening here? Nothing – more of the same. Fifty years of occupation, nothing basically changed. We are in the very same framework … sure, more settlements, sure, more brutality and sure, less of a feeling that it’s temporary. It’s very clear now that it’s not going to be temporary. This is part and parcel of Israel.”
I asked Levy if the proportional representation voting system made for hopeless coalition governments in Israel. “What we get is what we are,” he replies dismally. “And Israel is very nationalistic and very right wing and very religious – much more than you think – and the Israeli government is a very good reflection of the Israeli people. And Netanyahu’s the best presenter of Israel. He is by far too educated for Israel – but in his views, this is Israel. Power, power and power – maintaining the status quo for ever, not believing in the Arabs at all. Not believing in any kind of settlement with the Arabs, ever. And living only on our sword, a total state of war.”
Relations with the US are easy. “I’m not sure people are aware now how much Netanyahu dictates American policy. Anything that is decided now – UNRWA [the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine], all the cuts – it comes from Israel. Trump couldn’t care less. You think he knew what UNRWA was before? Racism is now politically correct.”
So where did it all go wrong? “First of all, in 1967, that’s the greatest sin. It all starts there. And if you want, you can say 1948 – because 1948 never stopped in 1948. We could really have opened a new chapter.” There are still examples of great men, he insists, even in the world after the Second World War. Mandela, for example.
But Israel’s most irascible and annoying journalist also says “maybe we are too old and we are just bitter and jealous, thinking that we were the best…” At the height of his peroration, just behind us, a huge white cat bounds from the garden hedge in panic, pursued by an even larger grey cat with teeth snapping and hissing, stirring up leaves and dust. The smaller cat, I suspect, represents Levy’s enemies. And despite his 65 years, you can guess who the larger cat reminds me of."
PALESTINA
The moment long feared is fast approaching in Gaza, according to a new report by the World Bank. After a decade-long Israeli blockade and a series of large-scale military assaults, the economy of the tiny coastal enclave is in “freefall”.
At a meeting of international donors in New York on Thursday, coinciding with the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, the World Bank painted an alarming picture of Gaza’s crisis. Unemployment now stands at close to 70 per cent and the economy is contracting at an ever faster rate.
While the West Bank’s plight is not yet as severe, it is not far behind, countries attending the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee were told. Gaza’s collapse could bring down the entire Palestinian banking sector.
In response, Europe hurriedly put together a €40 million aid package, but that will chiefly address Gaza’s separate humanitarian crisis – not the economic one – by improving supplies of electricity and potable water.
No one doubts the inevitable fallout from the economic and humanitarian crises gripping Gaza. The four parties to the Quartet charged with overseeing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians – the United States, Russia, the European Union and the UN – issued a statement warning that it was vital to prevent what they termed “further escalation” in Gaza.
The Israeli military shares these concerns. It has reported growing unrest among the enclave’s two million inhabitants and believes Hamas will be forced into a confrontation to break out of the straightjacket imposed by the blockade.
In recent weeks, mass protests along Gaza’s perimeter fence have been revived and expanded after a summer lull. On Friday, seven Palestinian demonstrators, including two children, were killed by Israeli sniper fire. Hundreds more were wounded.
Nonetheless, the political will to remedy the situation looks as atrophied as ever. No one is prepared to take meaningful responsibility for the time-bomb that is Gaza.
In fact, the main parties that could make a difference appear intent on allowing the deterioration to continue.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has ignored repeated warnings of a threatened explosion in Gaza from his own military.
Instead, Israel is upholding the blockade as tightly as ever, preventing the flow of goods in and out of the enclave. Fishing is limited to three miles off the coast rather than the 20-mile zone agreed in the Oslo accords. Hundreds of companies are reported to have folded over the summer.
Intensifying the enclave’s troubles is the Trump administration’s recent decision to cut aid to the Palestinians, including to the United Nation’s refugee agency, UNRWA. It plays a critical role in Gaza, providing food, education and health services to nearly two-thirds of the population.
The food budget is due to run out in December, and the schools budget by the end of this month. Hundreds of thousands of hungry children with nowhere to spend their days can only fuel the protests – and the deaths.
The Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas, headquartered in the West Bank, has no incentive to help. Gaza’s slowly unfolding catastrophe is his leverage to make Hamas submit to his rule. That is why the Palestinian Authority has cut transfers to Gaza by $30 million a month.
But even if Abbas wished to help, he largely lacks the means. The US cuts were imposed primarily to punish him for refusing to play ball with US President Donald Trump’s supposed “deal of the century” peace plan.
Israel, the World Bank notes, has added to Abbas’s difficulties by refusing to transfer taxes and customs duties it collects on the PA’s behalf.
And the final implicated party, Egypt, is reticent to loosen its own chokehold on its short border with Gaza. President Abdel Fattah El Sisi opposes giving any succour either to his domestic Islamist opponents or to Hamas.
The impasse is possible only because none of the parties is prepared to make a priority of Gaza’s welfare.
That was starkly illustrated earlier in the summer when Cairo, supported by the UN, opened a back channel between Israel and Hamas in the hope of ending their mounting friction.
Hamas wanted the blockade lifted to reverse Gaza’s economic decline, while Israel wanted an end to the weekly protests and the damaging images of snipers killing unarmed demonstrators.
In addition, Netanyahu has an interest in keeping Hamas in power in Gaza, if barely, as a way to cement the geographic split with the West Bank and an ideological one with Abbas.
The talks, however, collapsed quietly in early September after Abbas objected to the Egyptians. He insisted that the Palestinian Authority be the only address for discussions of Gaza’s future. So, Cairo is yet again channelling its energies into a futile attempt at reconciling Abbas and Hamas.
At the UN General Assembly, Trump promised his peace plan would be unveiled in the next two to three months, and made explicit for the first time his support for a two-state solution, saying it would “work best”.
Netanyahu vaguely concurred, while pointing out: “Everyone defines the term ‘state’ differently.” His definition, he added, required that not one of the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank be removed and that any future Palestinian state be under complete Israeli security control.
Abbas is widely reported to have conceded over the summer that a Palestinian state – should it ever come into being – would be demilitarised. In other words, it would not be recognisable as a sovereign state.
Hamas has made notable compromises to its original doctrine of military resistance to secure all of historic Palestine. But it is hard to imagine it agreeing to peace on those terms. This makes a reconciliation between Hamas and Abbas currently inconceivable – and respite for the people of Gaza as far off as ever.
The people of Gaza have been subjected to decades of expulsion, occupation, siege and massacre. They have now seized control of their Fate. They are risking life and limb as they protest nonviolently to reclaim their basic rights. It takes just one minute to send a video showing your support for Gaza in its moment of truth. Do it now! Send your videos to METOOGAZA.COM.
Renowned scientists urge cientific Community to consider the facts before engaging in activities with Israeli colonial-based Ariel University, and not engage any attemps to use science to normalise Israel(s occupation of the Palestinian territory. Check it out here.
BRASIL
The Intercept Brasil
A título de lembrança, na terrível história da perseguição dos nazistas aos judeus há uma passagem pouco conhecida. Durante a ascensão de Adolf Hitler ao poder na Alemanha, ele chegou a ser apoiado por um grupo chamado Associação de Judeus Nacionais Alemães.
Donald Niewyk, especialista no Holocausto, conta que na época que antecedeu a 2ª Guerra Mundial, a vasta maioria dos judeus alemães era leal à sua pátria-mãe, a Alemanha. Mesmo quando o Partido Nazista surgiu, eles não teriam se dado conta do perigo. A Associação de Judeus Nacionais Alemães até mesmo votou em Hitler e no seu partido. A organização teria apoiado Hitler porque não levava a sério a sua retórica antissemita. O grupo achava que os discursos inflamados do Führer serviam apenas para “agitar as massas”.
Ao ser eleito, Hitler não perdeu tempo. Ascendeu ao poder em janeiro de 1933 e declarou ilegal a Associação de Judeus Nacionais Alemães em 18 de novembro de 1935. No mesmo dia, a organização foi dissolvida e Max Naumann foi levado para um campo de concentração pela Gestapo (a polícia nazista) em 1935. Ele foi liberado após alguns dias e morreu de câncer quatro anos depois. BOLSONARO é o Hitler tupiniquim...
Por outro lado, há o "bispo" malandro, Edir Macedo, que aliou-se ao fascista para dominar o Brasil e ajudar o projeto sionista de limpeza étnica da Palestina.
A aliança de Edir Macedo e Jair Bolsonaro faz parte de um projeto ambicioso explicitado num livro lançado em 2008 pelo fundador da Igreja Universal.
“Plano de poder” é quase um Meio Kampf em matéria de sinceridade, despudor, ganância, fanatismo religioso e loucura.
A ascensão dos evangélicos é tratada como algo determinado pela Bíblia.
O co-autor é o jornalista Carlos Oliveira, na verdade um fantoche como o “repórter” Eduardo Ribeiro, da Record, que bateu papo com o ex-capitão no aconchego de seu lar em programa exibido no horário do debate da Globo.
Trata-se de um “manual que não se restringe apenas à orientação de fé religiosa”. É também “um livro que sugere resistência, tomada e estabelecimento do poder político ou de governo”.
No capítulo “A visão estadista de Deus” somos avisados de que para os crentes chegarem lá é necessário “engajamento, consenso e mobilização”.
“Insistimos em que a potencialidade numérica dos evangélicos como eleitores pode decidir qualquer pleito eletivo”.
“Em nenhum tempo da história do evangelho no Brasil foi tão oportuno como agora chamá-los de forma incisiva a participar da política nacional (…) O momento é oportuno ao projeto divino de nação!”, reza a obra.
Os fieis que ainda não entenderam “o projeto de poder político” precisam “despertar ao toque da alvorada”.
Ai de quem não desperta.
Recentemente, um pastor da Renascer, que pertence àquele casal preso nos EUA com 56 mil dólares em dinheiro vivo, foi demitido por se recusar a pregar em favor de Bolsonaro.
Com o “agente apropriado”, teremos o “início do grande intuito divino”.
“O êxito em política, sobretudo na atualidade, depende de um conjunto de ações estratégicas, bem elaboradas e objetivas, que vai desde o político como produto às ações dos que desejam elegê-lo”.
“Deus segue procedimentos normais e técnicos”.
A aproximação do bispo de mentira com Bolsonaro começou em novembro do ano passado, segundo a Folha, quando o extremista foi apresentado à direção da emissora em evento de um instituto filantrópico do grupo no hotel Unique, em São Paulo.
O "bispo" ganancioso terá, se JB triunfar, um amigo para despejar verbas publicitárias em seus negócios.
A ideia é ter aqui uma versão da Fox News, trincheira de Trump na mídia estadunidense.
A única maneira de defender um sujeito como Jair Bolsonaro é enganar a audiência — e isso é especialidade da casa. O pregador bilionário aprendeu direitinho a hasbara com seus cúmplices sionistas. Propaganda é sua maior arma. O falso profeta encontrou seu falso messias. Mas não vai passar não!
LISTENING POST: Brasil's élections, is social media overtaking the mainstream?
John Oliver explains Brazil's situation
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário