Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Identity Politics

Feminist, SJW garbage “The Last Jedi” worst film of 2017

Identity politics and social justice destroys Star Wars.

Published

on

331 Views

SPOILERS for those who have not seen the film, and we recommend you save your money and avoid this movie.

Disney, as was easy to predict, has shifted the Star Wars franchise away from a space fantasy, into a feminists, SJW, propaganda manifesto.

The Last Jedi is the pinnacle of liberal left, social justice film making.

The Amazing Lucas crushes Star Wars The Last Jedi as possibly the worst movie of 2017 in an entertaining and completely Red Pill review..

Matt Forney from Return of the Kings calls The Last Jedi one of “The Worst Films of the Decade.

No one will ever go broke underestimating the masochism of Star Wars fans. With the exception of last year’s Rogue One, every Star Wars film for the past twenty years has been pure, unadulterated garbage, yet the franchise continues to make enough money to outstrip the GDPs of half the third world. Star Wars: The Last Jedi is the latest outing in a galaxy far, far away, breaking box office records with yet another sugary mix of generic CGI action and social justice mumbo-jumbo.

The Last Jedi has also revealed mainstream movie critics to be bought-and-paid-for hacks, because their universal acclaim for the movie belies the fans utter revulsion for it. And the fans are right: The Last Jedi isn’t just the worst Star Wars film ever, it’s easily one of the worst films in years. Every time I think Star Wars can’t get any worse, the creators somehow dig themselves a little deeper into the hole.

The Last Jedi isn’t bad just because of anti-white, anti-male propaganda. It’s not bad just because it pisses all over Star Wars canon, including the canon of the previous film, The Force Awakens. The Last Jedi is bad because it fundamentally fails at storytelling and because it doesn’t understand what Star Wars actually is.

The Force Awakens was bad, but it was a bland, inoffensive kind of bad, whereas The Last Jedi actually made me angry. I would have walked out of the theater if Roosh hadn’t asked me to review the movie for ROK. Here’s why the movie is so horrible. And yes, this review is full of spoilers, but who cares?

No White Men Allowed

To be fair, director Rian Johnson had a tall order in cleaning up the mess that J.J. Abrams dumped in his lap. The Force Awakens was full of Death Star-sized plot holes that even a competent director or writer would have struggled to tie up. For example, in the previous film, it’s established that the Empire is defeated and the Republic rules the galaxy, yet there’s still a “Resistance” a la the Rebels in the original movies. What are they supposed to be resisting?

The Last Jedi picks up where The Force Awakens left off. Despite having destroyed the Death Star Starkiller Base, the Rebels Resistance have been cornered by the Empire First Order on Hoth an unnamed planet, where they’re forced to evacuate. But don’t worry: this movie isn’t just a frame-for-frame ripoff of The Empire Strikes Back. Because Rian Johnson had to prove his dick was bigger than J.J. Abrams’, he decided to rip off Return of the Jedi too!

Pretty much everything about The Last Jedi is a conscious slap in the face to Star Wars’ white male fans. For example, all of the leading generals in the Resistance are women, including Princess General Leia (Carrie Fisher), which explains why they went from running the galaxy in the previous movie to being reduced to a handful of ships in this one. All of the First Order’s soldiers and generals save one are white men, while the Resistance is staffed entirely by non-whites and women, with the exception of Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac).

Poe is by far the most interesting character in the movie, even considering how the script goes out of its way to shit on him. You can practically hear the writers muttering, “Fuck you, toxic masculinity!” every time he’s on screen. Despite being forward-thinking and courageous, Poe is constantly slapped down by his female superiors for being too “hot-headed.” For example, despite his bravery in taking out one of the First Order’s cruisers at the beginning of the movie, Leia demotes him for being “reckless.”

Later on in the movie, after Leia falls into a coma after miraculously surviving being blasted into open space (don’t ask), Poe discovers that her replacement, the purple-haired (yes, I’m serious) HR lady Holdo (Laura Dern) is planning to evacuate the Resistance’s last cruiser into unarmed transports, a suicidal and cowardly move. He intelligently proclaims a mutiny, only for Leia to side with Holdo, whose plan ends up getting all but two dozen members of the Resistance killed. Heckuva job, Holdy!

The film’s C-plot, starring Finn (John Boyega), is equally insipid. Frustrated with HR lady Holdo’s complete inability to lead, Finn teams up with Rose Tico (Kelly Marie Tran), a communist Montagnard with Down syndrome, to find a codebreaker who can keep the First Order from tracking the Resistance through hyperspace. They go to the resort planet of Canto Bight and literally start murdering people for the crime of being rich. This is Ghostbusters–tier dumb.

But none of this compares to how The Last Jedi rapes the character of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill). The main plot follows Rey (Daisy Ridley), the Mary Sue feminist street urchin, as she tries to convince Luke to help the Resistance and train her to use the Force. Luke initially refuses, whining about how the Jedi “deserve” to end, before reluctantly agreeing to Rey’s demands. Hamill’s performance is embarrassingly bad and Luke’s character arc is a sick joke, rivaling how The Force Awakens depicted Han Solo as a deadbeat Peter Pan.

One good thing about The Last Jedi is that Rey is given far less screen time then in The Force Awakens. She’s just as smarmy, unlikable, and unrealistic—her bizarre telepathic dialogues with antagonist Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) are a case in point—but this is still an improvement. Unfortunately, the addition of SJW masturbation fantasies like Rose and Holdo—who I’m pretty sure was given purple hair as a deliberate middle finger to the fans—drowns out this positive move.

Propaganda Over Plot

The Last Jedi’s insistence on shoving social justice down the audience’s throats is only one reason why it’s so bad. Rian Johnson was clearly out of his depth in directing a Star Wars movie: his sole good film to date is 2005’s Brick, a quirky blend of teen drama and film noir. The Last Jedi’s plot development, tone, character arcs, and everything else are muddled and nonsensical.

For example, the second part of a three-act drama is supposed to be dark and brooding, as the heroes go through struggles that test their ability to survive and triumph. But far from dark, The Last Jedi is full of tonally-inappropriate slapstick. The first part of the film is a dumb comedy routine between Poe Dameron and a First Order general that is not funny and doesn’t fit the story at all. Similarly, during one of their telepathic phone sex sessions, Rey whines about the fact that Darth Bugman has his shirt off, making the scene uncomfortably resemble the episode of Girls where Lena Dunham’s character catches Adam jacking off.

These constant tone shifts aren’t just jarring, they undermine the solemnity the movie desperately needs. The original Star Wars films were rooted in traditional myths and adventure stories of the mid-20th century, and while lighthearted at times, they were fundamentally serious movies. The Last Jedi is fundamentally un-serious, replacing the epic feel of the original movies with hipster nihilism about “let[ting] the past die.” This is illustrated when Luke and Yoda decide to destroy the Jedi library, with the reasoning that Rey, a snot-nosed 14-year old girl, is wiser than the collected works of all Jedi throughout history.

Rian Johnson’s cargo cult thinking infects the movie in other ways. For example, in the beginning of the movie, I had to stifle a laugh when the Resistance unveils deep space bombers that drop their payload out of bomb bays in the same way that airplanes do. Wing Commander got mocked relentlessly for doing this back in 1999, but the average movie critic’s IQ has dropped about five points since then, so nobody noticed how retarded this scene looked. Sure, the X-wing/TIE fighter dogfights in the original movies were based off of World War II airplane combat, but George Lucas wasn’t so stupid as to do something like this.

Not only that, The Last Jedi’s insistence on lecturing the audience about cultural Marxism actively impedes the plot in several ways. For example, near the end of the film, Finn leads a suicidal attack on the First Order that would save the Resistance. His sacrifice would have been a great moment in the film, showing how his character has grown since The Force Awakens, where he was depicted as a total coward.

But just as Finn is about to die a hero, Rose stops him, justifying it by saying that they need to win by “saving what we love” instead of “killing what we hate” (or some bullshit like that), dooming the Resistance in the process. Good job, moron. At least she dies afterwards, sparing us from having to listen to her nasally voice or look at her ugly face.

Finally, General Leia somehow manages to completely evade responsibility for Kylo Ren falling to the dark side of the Force, even though she’s his mother. The plots of both The Last Jedi and The Force Awakens have Darth Bugman focusing all his rage on Han Solo (his father) and Luke Skywalker, with Leia somehow skating off. And despite the fact that Leia’s son is the second-in-command of the First Order—meaning she is directly responsible for the galaxy being plunged into war—nobody has a problem with her serving as one of the Resistance’s senior leaders.

Putting Star Wars Out To Pasture

The central problem with the new Star Wars movies—or revivals of any classic franchise, for that matter—is that contemporary filmmakers don’t understand what made the originals good. Star Wars was a product of the 1970’s: an epic tale of good vs. evil, drawing on cultural motifs familiar to Americans of the time. Bugmen like Rian Johnson or J.J. Abrams can see the surface elements of Star Wars, but without being immersed in the cultural milieu that birthed it, the best they can do is high-budget fan fiction with SJW nonsense drizzled on top.

That’s all The Force Awakens or The Last Jedi are: cosplay with CGI. The X-wings and lightsabers and aliens may look like the ones in the original trilogy, but the heart and soul aren’t there. In their place is poor writing, left-wing agitprop, and dumb jokes. The Force Awakens was dull and boring, but The Last Jedi will leave you longing for the earnestness of Jar Jar Binks. Yes, it’s that bad.

The irony is that Kylo Ren’s nihilistic mantra of “let[ting] the past die,” while completely inappropriate for a Star Wars movie, is precisely how modern moviegoers should treat the franchise itself. Star Wars is dead, nerds. It’s not coming back. It’s time to take it behind the woodshed and put a bullet in its brain. The original movies were great and some of the video games were pretty good, but the monkey’s dead and the show is over.

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Doug Casey on Social Media: “Facebook enshrines stupidity”

“Just as Myspace was displaced by Facebook, I predict Facebook 2.0 will come along and replace Facebook.”

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Joel Bowman via InternationalMan.com:


Joel Bowman: G’day, Doug. Thanks for speaking with us today.

Doug Casey: No problem, Joel. It’s a pleasure to hear your Australian accent come across the ether from Mexico.

Joel: Let’s dive right in. A week or two ago, Facebook registered the largest single day loss for any one company in stock market history – roughly $122 billion. CEO Mark Zuckerberg lost around $15 billion himself, as much as the annual GDP of several resource-rich, West African nations.

Looking back to 2000, during the go-go days of the dot.com boom, Intel and Microsoft both registered staggering single-day losses, too… $90 billion and $80 billion, respectively. And we know what happened next in that case…

So, investors want to know… is past prologue? What’s next for Silicon Valley’s tech darlings?

Doug: Talking about losing multiple billions in a single day, it’s really a sign of the times. I remember when the only billionaires in the world were Howard Hughes, John Paul Getty and John Beresford Tipton– the mythical billionaire on a 1950’s-era show called “The Millionaire.”

These days, however, it seems everyone’s a billionaire. In fact, there are several thousand billionaires roaming the planet today, with new ones being minted almost every day.

Of course, much of this so-called wealth is just paper. It’s not real. In fact, it’s pretty clear to me that we’re in a stock market bubble. Which is being driven by the bond market hyper-bubble. And that, in turn, is fueling a real estate bubble, which I believe is just now beginning to deflate in major cities around the world.

None of this augurs well for the stock market. You’ve got bubbles all over the place. Except in the resource market. That’s the one place that hasn’t inflated. In fact, it’s been going down since it’s last peak in 2011.

Getting back to Facebook, I hope it goes bankrupt. I hate it as an institution. I hate what it does. I don’t like its policies. I don’t like its management. I don’t like the fact that it’s causing people to destroy whatever privacy they have left. While turning their brains to mush sending out selfies all day.

Joel: You’ve put a lot on the table there, Doug. Let’s unpack a bit of that, starting with the general tendency toward cerebral rot…

Many younger readers may not remember this, but there actually existed a time before everybody knew everything, when people had to read books and discuss them, engage in healthy debate and rigorous dialectic in order to learn and develop intellectually.

Now that everyone apparently has plenty of time to Instagram their kale salads and “like” one and other’s cat pictures, are we to assume mankind has finally reached the End of Learning…some new Age of Enlightenment?

Or might Facebook and its (anti)social media cousins represent – in addition to the potential fallout for investors – another, hidden cost to society?

Doug: Perhaps humanity is bifurcating into the Morlocks and the Eloi at this point. It’s true that people used to go to libraries. But even the Library of Congress has only a tiny fraction the world’s data available; libraries are quaint and delightful, but they’re dinosaurs.

All the knowledge in the world is now at our fingertips on the Internet. The Internet is one of the greatest inventions in history, on a par with moveable type and the Gutenburg printing press. A few people are using it to educate and better themselves—but relatively few.

Most people just use it for trivial amusement, as you mentioned. Facebook adds very little value to the equation. In fact, I can’t see that it does much that’s productive. It’s basically a vehicle for gossip and watching cat videos.

Joel: And it’s less than that. Aside from the general degradation of public discourse, social media also represents a kind of unalterable historical record of bad jokes and regrettable moments, accessible to anyone who may wish to besmirch one’s character or skittle one’s reputation.

We’ve all said things we wish we hadn’t. To err is to be human, after all. What do you make of a world in which everyone’s worst moments are readily available to everyone else – including potential enemies – at the click of a mouse?

Doug: Facebook enshrines stupidity. A heavy Facebook user is, in effect, saying: “Look at me! I’m a thoughtless person who doesn’t have anything better to do with his time”. That’s on top of the fact that users are exposing their thoughts, actions, and whereabouts to the NSA, the FBI, the CIA and any of a hundred other nefarious agencies. In fact, there are credible allegations that Facebook, along with Google and Amazon, are willing tools of these intelligence agencies. No good can come of being a Facebookista.

But that’s about whether you should use Facebook. Whether you should own Facebook stock is a different question. Even after the recent selloff, Facebook still has a market cap of about $500 billion, which impresses me as a lot for a chat site cum advertising vehicle. Especially one where most of its growth is behind it. A lot of users are getting hip to the fact they’re not customers, they’re the product.

Facebook was a clever innovation ten years ago. But you know, there’s an old saying in the stock market: High Tech, Big Wreck!

Just as Myspace was displaced by Facebook, I predict Facebook 2.0 will come along and replace Facebook. My understanding is that kids now see Facebook as something used by old people– people over 21 years of age. So if it’s going nowhere with the younger generation, where’s it’s future? Maybe it picks up a billion new users in the Third World. Ultimately, what’s that worth?

Facebook may not be a terminal short sale, but I certainly won’t be putting any of my own money into the stock.

Joel: Assuming you’re correct and Facebook 2.0 does displace the current market leader, are you hopeful that such a platform may serve to promote a heightened level of discourse? Perhaps people might find their way into “phyles,” that is, subgroups based on commonly shared values that actually have real world meaning?

Doug: I hope that, in a year or two, International Man itself grows into a community of likeminded people with above average I.Q.s, libertarian values, and real world experience. IM might, itself, even branch off to become its own kind of Facebook. A private version.

I know there’s a lot of talk about regulating FB, or breaking it up. That’s a bad idea; the government should have zero to do with business in general—and areas related to free speech in particular. I’m disgusted by the fact FB has kicked Alex Jones and others off their platform. But they have a right to do so, as a private company. Although, on the other hand, they’re almost a creature of the State.

But that’s not an excuse for the government to “step in”. What will happen is that a newer, better Facebook lookalike—or a dozen of them—will replace them. FB will self-destruct. It’s a non-problem.

To be frank, you and I don’t really have that much in common with most of the 7.3 billion people on this planet. In fact, while I like many individual humans, I despise humanity in general. The more people you put together in a group, the more they act like chimpanzees. Big groups force down the lowest common denominator.

There’s some cause for optimism, but only on a person-to-person basis. I prefer the company of people who value free minds and free markets—and I suspect most people who are reading this now feel the same way.

Joel: That’s probably a very good note to end this conversation on, Doug. Thanks, as always, for taking the time.

Doug: Meanwhile, we’ll look for something with the potential of Facebook in 2008… and stay away from Facebook today.

Continue Reading

Latest

Can America Ever Come Together Again?

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org:


If ex-CIA Director John Brennan did to Andrew Jackson what he did to Donald Trump, he would have lost a lot more than his security clearance.

He would have been challenged to a duel and shot.

“Trump’s … performance in Helsinki,” Brennan had said, “exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was … treasonous.”

Why should the president not strip from a CIA director who calls him a traitor the honor and privilege of a security clearance? Or is a top-secret clearance an entitlement like Social Security?

CIA directors retain clearances because they are seen as national assets, individuals whose unique experience, knowledge and judgment may be called upon to assist a president in a national crisis.

Not so long ago, this was a bipartisan tradition.

Who trashed this tradition?

Was it not the former heads of the security agencies — CIA, FBI, director of national intelligence — who have been leveling the kind of savage attacks on the chief of state one might expect from antifa?

Are ex-security officials entitled to retain the high privileges of the offices they held, if they descend into cable-TV hatred and hostility?

Former CIA chief Mike Hayden, in attacking Trump for separating families of detained illegal immigrants at the border, tweeted a photo of the train tracks leading into Auschwitz.

“Other governments have separated mothers and children” was Hayden’s caption.

Is that fair criticism from an ex-CIA director?

Thursday, The New York Times decried Trump’s accusation that the media are “the enemy of the people.”

“Insisting that truths you don’t like are ‘fake news’ is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists ‘the enemy of the people’ is dangerous, period,” said the Times.

Fair enough, but is it not dangerous for a free press to be using First Amendment rights to endlessly bash a president as a racist, fascist, sexist, neo-Nazi, liar, tyrant and traitor?

The message of journalists who use such terms may be to convey their detestation of Trump. But what is the message received in the sick minds of people like that leftist who tried to massacre Republican congressmen practicing for their annual softball game with Democrats?

And does Trump not have a point when he says the Boston Globe-organized national attack on him, joined in by the Times and 300 other newspapers, was journalistic “collusion” against him?

If Trump believes that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are mortal enemies who want to see him ousted or impeached, is he wrong?

We are an irreconcilable us-against-them nation today, and given the rancor across the ideological, social and cultural chasm that divides us, it is hard to see how, even post-Trump, we can ever come together again.

Speaking at a New York LGBT gala in 2016, Hillary Clinton said: “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … Some of those folks … are irredeemable, but … they are not America.”

When Clinton’s reflections on Middle America made it into print, she amended her remarks. Just as Gov. Andrew Cuomo rushed to amend his comments yesterday when he blurted at a bill-signing ceremony:

“We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great.” America was “never that great”?

Cuomo’s press secretary hastened to explain, “When the president speaks about making America great again … he ignores the pain so many endured and that we suffered from slavery, discrimination, segregation, sexism and marginalized women’s contributions.”

Clinton and Cuomo committed gaffes of the kind Michael Kinsley described as the blurting out of truths the speaker believes but desperately does not want a wider audience to know.

In San Francisco in 2008, Barack Obama committed such a gaffe.

Asked why blue-collar workers in industrial towns decimated by job losses were not responding to his message, Obama trashed these folks as the unhappy losers of our emerging brave new world:

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

These clingers to their Bibles, bigotries and guns are the people the mainstream media, 10 years later, deride and dismiss as “Trump’s base.”

What Clinton, Cuomo and Obama spilled out reveals what is really behind the cultural and ideological wars of America today.

Most media elites accept the historic indictment — that before the Progressives came, this country was mired in racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, and that its history had been a long catalog of crimes against indigenous peoples, Africans brought here in bondage, Mexicans whose lands we stole, migrants, and women and gays who were denied equality.

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

For such as these, Trump cannot scourge the media often enough.

Continue Reading

Latest

College offer courses on ‘queering’ children, the Bible

US Colleges are teaching students to “queer” Christianity and religion in general.

Campus Reform

Published

on

Authored by Celine Ryan via Campus Reform:


This school year, students across the country will attend courses on “Queering the Bible,” “Queering Childhood,” “Queering Theology,” and similar topics.

Students at Pomona College in Claremont, California, for instance, will have the opportunity to enroll in a brand new course titled “Queering Childhood,” which will examine “the figure of the Child and how this figuration is used by politics, law, and medicine to justify continued cultural investment in reproductive heteronormativity and productive ablebodiedness.”

The course description explains that students will examine the childhoods of “queer and crip children,” as well as “childhoods against which the figure of the Child is articulated,” with reference to work related to “gender studies, childhood studies, disability studies, and queer theory.”

Colleges are not only attempting to “queer” childhood, they are teaching students to “queer” Christianity and religion in general, as well.

This fall, Eugene Lang College will offer a course titled “Queering and Decolonizing Theology,” where students will explore topics such as “the sexual ethics and ritualization found in the S&M community,” and “transgender Christs.”

“Christian theology is often depicted as a violent colonial force standing in particular opposition to LGBTQI lives. However, over the last 30 years people of faith, activists, and theorists alike have rediscovered what is queer within Christianity, uncovered what is religious within secular queer communities, and used postcolonial theory to decolonize lived religious practices and theologies,” the course description asserts.

According to the college, the course “explores secular philosophies of queer and postcolonial theory as well as their critical and constructive application to religion,” focusing on topics like “the sexual ethics and ritualization found in the S&M community, transgender Christs, and the mestiza (or mixed) cultures of Latin America.”

Similarly, students at Harvard Divinity School will be able to attend a course on “Queer Theologies, Queer Religions” this fall, which will explore the “project of ‘queer theology’” and how it relates to “larger aspirations of queer religion or spirituality in America.”

In this course, students will begin by “sampling the efforts to revise traditional Christian theologies in order to accept or affirm same-sex loves.” After that, they will move on to examining “forgotten possibilities in historical engagements between advocates of homosexual rights and established religious bodies (chiefly churches and synagogues).”

“We will consider the boundaries between queer theology and queer theory or between it and other political theologies,” the course description explains.  “We will test the boundaries of ‘Christianity’ while considering the varied forms of queer religion outside familiar religious institutions—in spirituality or spiritualism, in magic or neo-paganism, in erotic asceticism.”

Swarthmore College students, meanwhile, will survey “queer and trans* readings of biblical texts” during a course titled “Queering the Bible,” which will introduce them to “the complexity of constructions of sex, gender, and identity in one of the most influential literary works produced in ancient times.”

“By reading the Bible with the methods of queer and trans* theoretical approaches,” the description promises, “this class destabilizes long held assumptions about what the [B]ible—and religion—says about gender and sexuality.”

The University of San Francisco is also getting into the act with a course on “Christian Feminist Theology” that aims to “develop an understanding of how feminist scholarship provides one fruitful means towards reappropriation of central Christian insights about God.”

The course will facilitate “critical reflection upon the experience of God, and insights from feminist thought,” according to the description.

In a similar vein, students enrolled in the University of Pennsylvania’s “Gender, Sexuality, and Religion” course “will read religion through a variety of feminist and queer theory lenses- exploring the key characteristics of diverse feminist analyses of religion, as well as limits of specific feminist approaches.”

“In this course we will learn about women’s and men’s rituals, social roles, and mythologies in specific religious traditions,” the course description explains. “We will also look at the central significance of gender to the field of religious studies generally, with particular attention to non-binary genders.”

To that end, the course will address questions such as “How important are the gender differences in deciding social roles, ritual activities, and spiritual vocations?” and “How does gender intersect with nationality, language, and politics?”

Campus Reform reached out to each of the schools mentioned in this report for additional comment on the courses in question, and is currently awaiting responses. This article will be updated if and when any of them provide a statement.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @celinedryan

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending