Jehovah’s Witnesses Literature Banned as “Extremist” in Russia

09 Apr 2010 at 07:13

tastyrerun

Interesting tidbit that came to my attention this morning, http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1385. Apparently somebody in the Russian government went and read the Watchtower Society publications and decided that, well, the views contained within where extreme and not conducive to a civil society, and they went ahead and banned those publications.

Now, I’m of several minds on this. First, I believe the government in Russia is precisely correct as to the views expounded by the Watchtower. The Witnesses do indeed promote the ideas that they have the one true religion and all others are from the devil, that they belong to the kingdom of God’s government and all earthly governments are from Satan and should be destroyed, and that anybody who leaves their religion should be punished for the rest of their lives. These are extreme views. Additionally, their teachings do sometimes kill people. Suicides of DF’d Witnesses and homosexual Witnesses, preventable deaths due to refusal of blood transfusions, not to mention the waste of human potential that results in their stand against secondary education, leading to JW young people who cannot find gainful employment or, in the USA, healthcare, all for want of the right to go to college. It is extreme to believe that your life needs to be committed, around the clock, to a publishing company in Brooklyn so that when God murders everybody on the planet any day now, you might have a chance to survive the carnage. It is extreme to believe that people who are not Witnesses should not be your true friends because they’re going to die too. It’s extreme to believe that it’s OK to shun people for their entire lives because they disagree with your interpretation of a book. BUT…

As much as I agree that the teachings are extreme and harmful and sometimes even deadly (not to mention having no basis in reality whatsoever), I do not agree that banning of such teachings by the State is the correct remedy for them and I really wish the Russian government hadn’t done that. There are several reasons for this. First, banning something tends to strengthen the beliefs of the group that is being banned. There is nothing like providing a little persecution for a group with a massive persecution complex to make them feel justified. I mean, the Witnesses are looking for persecution. They effing love persecution. It is like a sign from Jehovah that they are right. They teach it all the time. It is a core tenet of the Society that Witnesses will be driven underground and persecuted just before Armageddon. I know that Witnesses the world over are telling each other about how the persecution in Russia shows just how close they are to Armageddon. So, basically, the Russian government isn’t doing any of the rest of us any favors. Secondly, it is unnecessary to persecute the Witnesses. If their beliefs were simple treated with the laughter they deserve and they were left to their crackpottery, they would whither on the vine of their own accord. There is evidence that this is already happening, with Witnesses suffering the lowest retention numbers of any religion around and growing slower and slower every year. What they are selling: contempt for the beliefs of others mixed with a jumble of lies carefully packaged as The Truth by the use of every propagandistic technique at their disposal, is less and less palatable to an educated populace. If you just accept that you can’t stamp out every dangerous idea in the world, that we will always have the stupid and crazy with us, then you can just let them go. Maybe force through the blood transfusions for minors with JW parents, but other than that, leave them to their craziness. They’re going to do it anyhow, but as we get more access to information worldwide, they’ll look more and more like loonies and they’ll either change or fade away. Lastly, the Witnesses are not a threat to the State. That much ought to be fairly obvious. They are a threat to family happiness and human rationality but there is not, and never has been, a JW terrorist. They don’t get involved in politics, they don’t even vote. Their fundamental message is that they need to stay off in their own little separate cult and wait for the rest of us to be murdered by God. They don’t need to do a thing. They don’t even need to recycle if they don’t want to. God will fix it all. Other than being an inert, bloody useless, lump of humans where social service or civic duty are concerned, they’re no more a threat to national security than my kitten Tomo is (who ate four heirloom tomato seedlings yesterday before I found her in the planter, the little moron, but I digress).

Dear Russia, if you want to stop the Witnesses from causing the real harm that they actually cause, you’re doing it wrong. You’re actually throwing fuel on the fire by banning them. It’s what they want. The way to stop them is to give massive exposure to what they actually believe, highlighting the worst parts, so that individuals know to steer clear of the group and let attrition take care of the rest. Please don’t feed into their paranoid, delusional, fantasy that they are the sole purveyors of Truth in this Time of the End and that Satan’s World is intent on persecuting them. You’re not helping the situation, Russia.

I don’t know, maybe I’m not helping much by posting this to my blog either, but I like to think that every little bit of light on the whole JW mess helps sane people know to keep away from it. The Witnesses are nice people, most of ‘em, and they mean well, but the beliefs they hold are definitely extreme and occasionally dangerous, and if we all just ignore them and keep spreading rationality, eventually they’ll either soften their teachings or suffer such a loss of membership that they will matter even less in the grand scheme of things than they do today. Here’s hoping…

More From Ryan Sutter

tom sheepandgoats

They don’t even need to recycle if they don’t want to.

Are there groups that maintain their people MUST recycle, whether they want to or not?

Where recycling is the law of the land/community, doubtless JW compliance is higher than most, as they are well-known to be law-abiding. Where it is not the law of the land, doubtless JW compliance is higher than most, out of respect for the planet.

Law-abiding to the core, honest, working, not abusing government services, not contributing to the considerable criminal element which freely operates in most lands, promoting stable, monogamous families....the fact that these qualities, bedrock to any stable population, are ignored, while beliefs that are, at worst, eccentricities, come to determine government policy......such a reality might reasonably fuel any 'persecution issues' the group might hold. I mean, banning Witnesses really makes little sense.

After all, it's not as if nobody else has ever said an unkind thing about the world's religions. Perhaps even on this site, such remarks have appeared.
tastyrerun

Hi Tom, nice to see you again.

If you read my post thoroughly, I hope you noticed that I agreed that banning the Witnesses was the wrong thing to do and that they were no harm to the State.

Also, you are no doubt correct about the recycling. If there is a law stating that a Witness needs to recycle, they will comply. However, as James points out, the fact that Witnesses see God's Kingdom as the solution to all of the problems in the world means that anything humans do to try to solve those problems is basically doomed to failure and therefore not worth the effort. The Watchtower and especially Awake! routinely highlight the problems in the world, including things like pollution, and they nearly always point out that mankinds efforts to fix the problem cannot possibly be sufficient but that we can have hope anyhow because of the New Order. This leads to the undeniable fact that Witnesses take almost no initiative towards making the world we live in a better place in any way. It is the rare Witness who is concerned about the ecological impact of their lifestyle.
tom sheepandgoats

This leads to the undeniable fact that Witnesses take almost no initiative towards making the world we live in a better place in any way.

Not to oversimplify, but if the entire population were Witnesses, there would be no need for efforts to make the world we live in a better place. This because of the aforementioned traits which are instilled into each Witness. Thus, merely propagating Witness beliefs is a step toward making the world a better place.

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem," goes the saying. Since our view of the ultimate solution differs, it follows Witnesses won't be part of your solution. But we'll do nothing to thwart it. Nor do we speak against it, other than to observe (as you pointed out) that we feel it's a stopgap measure at best. James mentioned participating in a park cleanup. I'd agree with his assessment that it's not too likely he'd find Witnesses among the crew....we tend to use our free time to highlight what we feel is the more lasting solution. But there's no one among us who's going to speak ill of James' efforts. My experience is that it's only the tiniest sliver of the population who take part in such cleanups. If JWs also aren't involved in the community cleanup, it must be acknowledged that they are unlikely to be among those who caused the mess in the first place.

And yes, I did read the entire post, and agree that we're on the same page with regards to a ban, though for different reasons.
tastyrerun

I would have to disagree with the assessment that if the whole world followed Witness values the world would automatically be a better place. In some ways it would. There would be no war, which would be fantastic, but there would also be no science or technology, which would be not so great. I mean, no higher education = no colleges = no research = no innovation, and Witnesses are anti-college. Also, nobody would much care about global warming or pollution so they wouldn't particularly attempt to address those problems, so those problems would get worse and the technological solutions that might address them would go undiscovered until it was too late.

So, while some things would be better (crime, war) other things would be worse (technology, the environment). There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I understand and respect that Witnesses have put all their eggs in the basket of The New Order where these things are concerned. I understand that since they've bet everything on this being True, the obvious correlation is that the best thing they can do for mankind is to preach about it. I understand this because I believed it for 30 years. But, the Witness solution to everything is entirely predicated on outside intervention by an invisible supernatural being, which, frankly, could quite easily turn out to be nothing more than a pipe dream and in the meantime, while they're waiting for Superman, they live here, in this world, with the rest of us, breathing the air we breath, sharing our streets, and being affected by the same problems that affect us. I've spoken to a lot of worldly people who really wish that instead of trying to preach at them, they're friendly neighborhood JW's would actually do something in the community that made a visible difference.
tom sheepandgoats

There would be no war, which would be fantastic, but there would also be no science or technology, which would be not so great. I mean, no higher education = no colleges = no research = no innovation, and Witnesses are anti-college.

Hmmm. Well, it's a hypothetical, isn't it? since we both know that all the world is not going to adopt Witness values, let alone become Witnesses. But if they did, most of our reserve about science, technology and higher education would vanish, need for a preaching work would diminish, paving the way for Witnesses so inclined to turn their attention to these fields. Witnesses freely utilize technology as it suits their purposes even now. New Bethel facilities are typically 'green' - usually quite advanced. The floors at the Port-au-Prince Bethel undulated madly up and down, but when the quake was over the building suffered no damage. Only a few fence sections were down. Quite remarkable in a poor land where the most prominent buildings were flattened, and possible only because the latest quake-proof technologies were incorporated in the building's construction.

Witnesses routinely erect Kingdom Halls in a single weekend (nowadays it tends to be two, but only for reasons of human logistics) It's largely due to their influence (there are many, many Witness contractors, I'm sure you'll agree) that commercial buildings in general go up much quicker than they used to.

If all the world adopted Witness values, presumably that would include those involved in higher education, thus negating whatever caution we might have toward this area. As it is, Witness publications stress training youngsters to "support themselves decently," and to this end, whatever educational resources the community offers are fair game. We like trade schools, certificate courses, 2-year degrees, and so forth. We're not too enthused about colleges, it's true, but then again, if the hypothetical we're entertaining were to become reality, urgency of preaching would disappear, prevalent college atmosphere would change, thus defusing any caution we might have towards them. In the end, though, each family does what they see fit regarding education, even if it involves college, and all our encouraged to mind their own business and not make judgments on the affairs of others (though...sigh... not everyone heeds such council)

This time my return URL is that of a post I wrote on the subject of higher education, and not to my blog in general. Read it if you like.
tastyrerun

I think, Tom, that we both agree that the utopian ideas underlying the Witness spiritual paradise are good. I am all about no war, mutual respect, caring for the earth, all of it. That's what I want too. Also, the Witnesses espouse a commitment to truth, which I deeply embrace as well.

Unfortunately, when subjected to critical scrutiny the teachings of the Watchtower Society don't stand up to the demonstrable facts of history and science. If I'm going to put all my eggs in one basket, there needs to be solid evidence that it's more than wishful thinking. That is simply not the case. The only way to accept Biblical literalism and inerrancy is to cherry-pick the evidence. If it were true, that would not be necessary. Facts are conclusions that are consistent with all the available evidence, not conclusions consistent with a carefully chosen subset of the evidence. If you're going to dedicate your time and resources to helping make the world a better place, spreading a story about how it's all going to get better through supernatural intervention is a waste of time at best. When somebody dies because of the self-sacrifice they put into serving that story, it's far more than a waste of time, it's a tragedy.

I might also add that the solution the Witnesses espouse involves the mass murder of billions of men, women, and children, which is an unacceptably high price to pay to solve the problems of the world. If Jehovah really existed and wanted to create a paradise earth, he could just transform the earth into a paradise. I would think that would qualify as a sufficiently powerful proof both of his existence and his goodness that even the most hard-hearted atheist in the world would have to admit they were wrong because they accept the evidence that is presented. There is no reason for the mass murder. None. Give every living person a real revelation of The Truth, show them all that the Bible is true, and almost everybody on earth would immediately be a Witness of Jehovah. If a god can't do that, or won't do it, and instead feels the need to massacre our entire species for failing to accept Him without solid evidence, then you can't argue He is a just or loving or a good being. You don't solve pollution or war or crime or poverty by murdering everyone and call yourself good.
tom sheepandgoats

While it's possible to carry on about how 'mean' God is, it seems to me the more practical course is to stay on his good side. It's not that hard to do.

Do you really have an issue with the wicked being destroyed? Today's is that millions routinely die, haphazardly, to advance no noble cause whatsoever - of war, of hunger, of brutality. Not to mention billions who barely subsist - permanent victims of the unjust system human rulership has produced. There's no realistic hope things will ever improve, and considerable reason - just extrapolate present trends - to suppose they may worsen.

Long ago on your blog I traded remarks with someone who'd been confused by Watchtower statements. Some seemed to indicate no one would escape destruction save those in the faith, others indicated more latitude. I think I replied that all the Wt can do is be guided by the Bible, and the Bible is not that specific. Some verses seem narrow indeed, and some a great deal broader. So why not acknowledge God will destroy "the wicked" and leave it at that? He'll know who they are. He won't check with me, you, or anyone at Bethel before carrying out judgment, which is well; I'm sure not capable of determining just who should be placed where. So if anyone entertains a view that turns out to be overly harsh, when all is said and done, no ones been harmed, have they? And if more are saved that was previously thought, well...so much the better. I don't know anyone who would be upset about that. We don't have to know everything up front.

Among the "broader" verses are those that deal with Dathan, Korah, and Abiram. You will recall these guys are 'poster boys' for rebellion. Having experienced first hand God's deliverance through the Red Sea, within a few months, they were nonetheless ready to disown Moses, assume authority for themselves, and lead a revolt. You will recall that the earth opened up and swallowed them alive into Sheol. Not Gehenna, the place of permanent destruction, but Sheol, the common grave of mankind, from which there is a resurrection. If these guys, living in a time much more black and white then our day, do not suffer permanent destruction, just who does? Perhaps fewer will be destroyed in Jehovah's day than we imagine. I don't know. I don't think anybody does. It's not really necessary to know.

It's all hypothetical, I realize. Since you no longer believe in God, statements that he will do this or that are meaningless to you. I only mention the above to illustrate that, for one who believes in God, his destroying "the wicked," however many they turn out to be, is not a deal-breaker.

You will remember from your Bible days the reason God doesn't reveal himself as you now suggest he ought to. Every child can muster fine behavior when they know Santa is coming, but it goes only skin-deep, doesn't it? Yes, God could hammer everyone with revelations of his existence. They'd all sign up for the cause in a hurry, as you state, but would it really affect them at heart? Or might it just be analogous to how you'll serve your hated boss, only because you know he has the upper hand. By allowing matters to unfold as they have he separates for himself a people who serve him out of love.
tastyrerun

I concur with everything James said, so I won't readress those same points, however, I would love to know what data supports the claim that the world is going from bad to worse and mankind cannot ever fix their own problems. I can think of many things that have improved dramatically since the Watchtower started publication (for example, life expectancy has more than doubled) and I can think of quite a few successful human endeavors that prove that a committed group of people working to make the world a better place can actually do it. So, where is the justification for the hopelessness and negativity that is espoused in that world view? Where is the justification for killing "wicked" children or adults for no crime beyond failing to believe in a God who refuses to provide evidence that he exists? I mean, basically, if the world keeps getting better as part of the overall trend, how can it be argued that it's right to kill everybody?

This, as an aside, brings up something that bothered me even as a Witness, which is that "true peace and security" scripture. It seems unfathomably cruel to destroy humanity at the exact moment that they finally accomplish the very goal that they supposedly couldn't accomplish. If humans actually accomplished true peace and security, shouldn't they be allowed to experience the rewards of their labor rather being slaughtered en masse because they did it on their own?
Falterer

By the "true peace and security" scripture, do you mean 1 Thess 5:3? As a JW, I understood that to mean, "when the leaders of the world voice the claim that there is peace", but that the peace they speak of would not be a reality. JW's claim the scripture is an allusion to Jeremiah 8:11 (in which the wise men of Jerusalem are "saying, 'There is peace! There is peace!' when there is no peace," etc.) The allusion works much better if you first translate the Bible into English and thereby conflate two different words from different languages and cultures (shalom vs eirene), but since it's a prophecy of impending doom, and Jehovah's Witnesses think all Bible prophecies of impending doom are microcosms of Armageddon, it's not too great a stretch.

"If the world keeps getting better as part of the overall trend, how can it be argued that it's right to kill everybody?"

I don't think it's even necessary to enter the debate of whether humanity is waxing or waning to make this argument; Jehovah's test of human rule is more fundamentally flawed: the basic idea is that we humans are incapable of taking care of our own problems, and that six thousand years or so of killing each other should sufficiently demonstrate to the entire universe--not just to God, who already knows this, but to everyone, including me, who denies it--that we need God to rule us.

But if Armageddon comes tomorrow, how are we to know "this system" didn't end right before someone came up with a game-changing peacemaking idea? How are we to know God is playing fair and not calling the game "over" just before he's about to lose the lead? It's not sufficient for God to say, "Well, I'm always honest." If that'd ever been sufficient, he could've just said so in the first place and skipped the whole apparently rotten system.

God could at least wait until the batting team is "all out" before declaring victory. That is to say: until we've actually finally blown ourselves up. The decent chaps will be resurrected again anyway, so what does it matter. But no, despite having sat out two world wars and untold tortures and cruelties, he's too impatient to wait what Jehovah's Witnesses tell us is probably the last five minutes before we all kill each other and save him the hassle. As interpreted by JW's, scripture tells us he will do the killing himself.

Not very sporting, that Jehovah.
jameszimmerman

Tom,
I’m a little confused by your second paragraph – it seems that you’re saying that since so many people die pointlessly today, that we shouldn’t mind if God offs some of them. If that’s what you’re saying, than it’s akin to saying that since millions die of hunger every year, I might as well starve my kid. And while I agree that a strong case could be made for ‘destroying’ wicked individuals, the difficult part of this case is defining what, exactly is wicked.

Since, as your third paragraph argues, wicked will be defined by god, and since “all things written aforetime are for our benefit,” then we can look to the bible to see who counts as wicked. Included among god’s definition are children, infants and fetuses (Gen. 7:23, 19:26, Ex. 12:29, 2 Sam 12:14-18, 2 Kings 2:23-24); people who spill their seed (Gen 38:10), people who pick up sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15: 32-36), complainers (Num 16:49, Num 21:6), non-virgin Midianites (Num 31), pretty much everyone in Canaan (Joshua), people who try to protect god’s things (2 Sam 6:6-7), prophets who believe other prophets (1 Kings 13), and Syrians (1 Kings). If god categorizes mass murders as wicked, he’s gonna have to commit suicide on judgment day.

In your 4th paragraph you indicate that Korah, Dathan and Abiram (KDA) might be resurrected at a future time. I see no indication of this in the bible and, further, it seems odd that god would be angry enough to murder someone one day, but then be cool with them to resurrect them the next day. Additionally, while the ultimate fate of KDA might be up for speculation, the Watchtower Society insists that many people killed by god will not be resurrected, including everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah (unless they’ve flip-flopped on this teaching again).

So, you’re right, believing that god will kill (and leave dead) the truly wicked is not a deal-breaker. If you’ve already swallowed everything else the Watchtower teaches, it’s easy to dismiss things that may seem odd. Few people would mourn a future paradise in which, say, Charles Manson is not invited. However, the bible repeatedly shows that god kills people for silly reasons – sometimes just out of anger – and he shows no favoritism towards innocent children. The Society agrees that children will be killed with their ‘wicked’ parents.

When I was a Witness, I was saddened when certain people were DF’d, or even just if they drifted away, because I feared they would be killed in Armageddon. My fears were firmly rooted in a lifetime of Witness indoctrination and they were not contradicted by other Witnesses; to the contrary, they were confirmed. When I met the woman who became my wife, she pointed out a whole new dimension I hadn’t before considered: her entire family was non-JWs, and so she constantly mourned the imminent loss of her grandmother, cousins, uncles, aunts, and older brother. These people were hardly ‘wicked.’ Apart from a pedophile who was in my congregation in Apple Valley (and who, as a member in good standing, is fully expecting to walk right in to paradise any day), I can’t say I’ve ever known anyone truly wicked – Witness or not.

Your final paragraph is an ex post facto rationale; the kind of reasoning that only works on someone who has already agreed to believe in god and religion. You claim that if god’s existence were proven, then everyone would jump on the bandwagon and then who would know who’s being truly faithful? Well, god would know…he can read hearts, right?

Also, I feel that people like my wife and son love me more because my existence has been proven to them. I don’t have to hide in a mist of shadows and uncertainties just to be assured of their love for me. Yeah, sure, sometimes maybe my son is only being good because he doesn’t want to get into trouble, but I’m also fairly certain he loves me, wants to please me, and does the right thing because he sees good results, and because of his conscience. My wife is pregnant right now, so maybe it would be a good idea for me to move across country before the baby is born and never prove my existence to the baby. If the child writes to me one day asking for something, I’ll just orchestrate a convoluted plan in which a stranger on the street gives him/her the needed item, thereby leaving my existence a continuing question. Then, when the child turns 18, I’ll magically appear and say, “Sure, I could’ve been a good father, I could’ve been right here with you, giving you tangible companionship and assistance, but would that have really affected you at heart? No, I wanted to allow matters to unfold this way so as to separate for me a child who serves me out of love.”

At any rate, the Santa illustration puts it nicely: Witnesses believe that they will live forever in paradise without ‘wicked’ people. Many, many of them are serving god with that reward in view. I think it’s fair to say that most of them would leave the religion if the Watchtower told them there was to be no reward. So, if god’s plan is truly to see who’s gonna worship him out of pure love, than he’s failed in this way. Witnesses are told to keep their eyes on the prize.
tom sheepandgoats

It's subjective, I guess. How much confidence does one have in human self-government? If you think things overall are deteriorating, one set of views follow. If you think everything is coming up roses, another. Likewise, in fact more so, with the existence or non-existence of God.
E-rock

I don't understand your logic here. None of these things are connected. It's entirely possible that there is a god and that things are getting better for humankind. It's also possible that there is a god and things are getting worse for mankind. Both could also be true in a scenario where there is no god.

At different times in history, different things would be true. Reign of Stalinist Russia = worse time for the world. Smallpox, arguably the most dangerous disease of all time eradicated from the face of the earth = better time for the world. Both of these things occurred irrespective of the existence of god.

Interesting discussion.
jameszimmerman

My experience is that JWs recycling is lower than the population at large. I frequently inquired as to why my friends and family did not participate in local recycling programs, and their reason was "Jehovah will take care of it." Care for the planet seems to rise once a person exits the religion. Today, my wife, son, and I participated in a local park clean-up - something we never did when Witnesses.
jameszimmerman

Worldwide percentage increase over previous year:

1975: 7.24%
1980: 3.79%
1985: 6.01%
1990: 5.73%
1995: 5.50%
2000: 2.04%
2001: 1.34%
2002: 2.97%
2003: 1.94%
2004: 1.29%
2005: 1.52%
2006: 1.89%
2007: 3.11%
2008: 2.34%
2009: 2.58%

Percentage increase over the previous year in the US has held between 0.93-1.01% for the past 30+ years.
tastyrerun

Thanks James. That's interesting. The US numbers appear to be pretty close to the population growth rate in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate) of 0.97%.

As for your other numbers, It does seem that the 1975-1995 numbers were far more impressive than the numbers since 1995. I wonder if the combination of the Internet and the change in the definition of "generation" in 1995 are contributing factors?
jameszimmerman

Thanks, glad you liked the fruits of my "personal study."

Yeah, the % increase is going down. In some years during the last two decades, the % increase has been <1%.
Though I don't have all the numbers laid out as nicely, many European countries have been decreasing in membership for 10+ years. Scandinavia, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands and others. Basically, growth is sluggish where information is proliferating. The actual number of publishers has steadily risen over the past 3 decades; the growth in Africa, Latin American and SE Asia offsetting the negative growth elsewhere.
Rorschach

Looks like this happened back in December. I wonder if there's been any update or change in the situation since then.

Are Witness numbers actually dwindling? I know they stopped publishing monthly US numbers in the KM, which makes it seem like they are hiding numbers that aren't encouraging. I have something in the back of my head, however, that maybe a relative told me the Witnesses in the US grew significantly last year.
tastyrerun

To be nit-picky, I actually said that their retention numbers were the worst and that their growth was slowing, not that they were shrinking (yet). I wish I could find some hard numbers, but signs seem to be pointing to hard times for the W's.
david

Wonderful post. It pains me not to be able to find something to disagree with here. :P
tastyrerun

That may very well be the first time that's ever happened. :-)

ryansutter.net

Jehovah’s Witnesses Literature Banned as “Extremist” in Russia

More From Ryan Sutter

Related posts

Meta

Archives

What I'm Doing...

Media RSS

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Meta