Widespread Anti-Semitism on Progressive Websites UPDATE

The full title of Joshua Holland's article in AlterNet is Ridiculous "Study" Supposedly Finds Widespread Anti-Semitism on Progressive Websites. It was written by Adam Levick.

As intellectually dishonest as this study could get, to quote Holland, it is not actually far from the discourse occasionally seen on progressive blogs like Daily Kos and MyDD. Take this exchange in the comment section of a diary recently posted about the Gaza siege (edited for generality):

Commenter A

Israel is perceived as the bad guy by some people.... That certainly seems to be the popular position in the more liberal corners of the Democratic party.

Commenter B

I'm a liberal, but I cannot help but notice the rise of anti-Zionism within the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic party.

If it continues to gain traction it will likely alienate the hell out of the Jewish liberal community and supporters of Israel.

Obama got something like 80% of the Jewish vote, but I'm guessing that percentage will be considerably lower next time around because of the way that he has seriously mishandled I-P.

In a previous comment, Commenter B ended a sentence with this phrase: "their ideological predisposition to blame everything onthe JewsIsrael," made evident that a charge of anti-Semitism is implicated in such remarks.

The report from the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs as discussed by Joshua Holland mentioned large blogs like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Glen Greenwald's, Salon. The article is too long to quote in its entirety, but these paragraphs get to the gist of it.

Given how ubiquitous unsubstantiated charges of anti-Semitism have become in the debate over the Middle East conflict, I'm tempted to ignore the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs' recent "report" supposedly exposing the liberal blogosphere as a teaming hotbed of raw Jew-hatred.

It's easy to dismiss. It may dress itself as some sort of empirical research project, but the "study" is transparently devoid of any informational value, intellectually bankrupt and clearly the product of working backwards from a conclusion arrived at on ideological grounds.


The gist:

Progressive blogs and news sites in the United States are a new field where Jew-hatred, in both its classic and anti-Israeli forms, manifests itself. This incitement is hardly monitored, as many of the most popular blogs are only a few years old and it seems counterintuitive that such anti-Semitic expressions would be found in this political milieu. Monitoring the media for anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli bigotry has so far almost exclusively consisted of reading the major American newspapers, magazines, and journals and attending to the three major news networks, as well as radio broadcasts. However, the huge amount of content in the political blogosphere makes such monitoring - which is increasingly necessary - much more difficult to achieve with any degree of thoroughness.


The report uses just three prominent blogs -- Daily Kos, Salon, and the Huffington Post -- as a sample supposedly representing the entire liberal online world....

Cecile Sarasky of Muzzlewatch had similar sentiments:

Most of what passes for anti-Semitism in this new "report" is nothing new to readers of Muzzlewatch, and you should read Holland's full piece where he does a fantastic job of dissecting the terrible methodology of this blatantly propagandistic report.

Daily Kos was taken to task in the "report" with specific mention of two diarists, Heathlander and jon the antizionist Jew, both of Jewish heritage, as being notable purveyors of anti-Semitism.

Heathlander, who has his own blog, provided the best critique of the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs article. His summary said it all:

It is of a piece with the broader efforts by the "new antisemitism"-mongers to detect antisemitism, in the form of criticism of Zionism and of Israeli-policies, on the liberal-left, and of the recent push by Israel and its apologists to aggressively market Israel's image and arguments online. This is largely a reaction to the fact that Israel is increasingly losing the propaganda war as the realities of its brutal repression of the Palestinians become increasingly well-known. If (Adam) Levick's half-baked ramblings are the best that Israel's apologists can come up with to reverse this trend, the prospects for Palestinian solidarity activism in the US and Britain look very good indeed.

A final point: it is worth noting that Levick's piece, while ostensibly opposing antisemitism, in fact propagates and indeed relies upon a central antisemitic theme, namely the conflation of Israel with Jews. Hence, for example, his listing of "Israel is demonized" as an example of a "historical anti-Semitic staple", and his concluding call for progressives to show "moral clarity" by condemning criticisms of Zionism as antisemitic. Clearly such manifest racism should not be tolerated. Will the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs follow Daily Kos's admirable example and ban Levick from publishing on its site, or will it follow Levick's more stringent demands and delete this piece of trash altogether?

The meme, criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, will probably never lose favor, but at least it is recognized for what it is.

UPDATE: Interesting article from the Alternative Information Center, Jerusalem

An Outrageous and Pathetic Weapon Against BDS: Stop Instrumentalizing Anti-Semitism!

Every time the State of Israel is confronted with substantial international criticism for its political behavior and its violations of basic international standards, it counter-attacks by using the infamous tool of accusations of anti-Semitism. One remembers the campaign on anti-Semitism launched by Ariel Sharon and his friends throughout the world, Jews and non-Jews, after the murder of Muhammad al-Dura in Gaza in September 2000, in order to create a diversion (in the very words of Roger Cukierman, then chairman of the French Jewish umbrella organization—CRIF) and to transform the victim into a victimizer and the victimizer into a victim: for more than two years, western media “exposed” the anti-Semitism of the critics of Israel instead of denouncing the massacres committed by the Israeli military in Gaza and the West Bank.

Sixty five years after the end of WWII, the ashes of the victims of Nazi genocide have not yet disappeared from the sky of Poland, and the accusation of anti-Semitism remains connected to one of the bloodiest crimes of the twentieth century; as French journalist, Daniel Mermet, one of the targets of this campaign, pointed at, “no accusation can be worse, and even after you are proved not guilty of charge, the bad smell of such an accusation will be with you forever.”


BDS means Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, which may now be Israel's most feared assault against its occupation and colonialism of the Palestinian territories. So charges of anti-Semitism have increased accordingly.

Tags: anti-Semitism, Gaza, Heathlander, Israel, Muzzlewatch, Palestine (all tags)



Re: Widespread Anti-

People have sensitivities and the blog environment lacks mechanisms that normally filters out hyperbole. It explains why I'm a "Fanboy" to some, on the one hand, while I admit to melodramatically amplifying any argument that strikes me as unfair criticism of my favorite President ever.

Certainly, if some of the arguments leveled against Israel's behavior were expressed in more traditional venues, a characterization of 'Anti-Semitic' would be nearer the mark.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

by QTG 2009-12-24 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Widespread Anti-

The more traditional venues, as you put it, the mainstream US media, are in a state of censorship (fear, paralysis) concerning any reporting about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Silence is the mode of the day, keeping it out of the news, lest the truth about what is actually going on in the Palestinian territories be leaked. And perhaps charges of anti-Semitism would follow and the meek would withdraw into their shells.

Yet I don't know how just telling factual truths could be anti-Semitic, as you suggest.

by MainStreet 2009-12-24 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't phrase that well

I understand Antisemitism like I understand Racism, vicariously, and therefore I can't weigh in with any authority. But I have noticed that there is a varying amount of sensitivity among those who actually have the proper credentials to express a first hand experience. The 'feeling' that someone is being anti-Semitic can't be objectively judged at the margins, so critics of Israel get lumped in with David Duke when there is no basis for it. I was just saying that the problem is exacerbated when on the netz.

by QTG 2009-12-24 05:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't phrase that well

At various times, those critics certainly have been lumped in with bigots, and intentionally, but the idea that criticism of Israel represents criticism of Jews, even the conflation of these two concepts, Israel and Jews, for purpose of denigrating himan rights activists is also intentionally done.

by MainStreet 2009-12-24 07:31AM | 0 recs

unlike QTG, you appear capable only of gloating and poking others with a stick, and incapable of thinking or writing intelligently at all.

by JJE 2009-12-26 06:30PM | 0 recs
Likud is not Israel

Opposing 'Greater Israel' is not anti-semitism

Celebrating assassins and mass murderers (Amir & Goldstein) is not a reliable method for rallying world opinion to your cause.

And the Shoah is not a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card for promoting settler demands for Lebensraum via Eliminationism.

Forty years ago the vision of the typical Israeli was either the Sabra Kibbutznik, rifle in one hand, shovel in the other, turning desert into garden or the Tel Aviv secular socialist determined never to forget but with eyes firmly fixed on the future. Back then Meir Kahane was considered both officially and publicly a despicable racist terrorist. Today people who don't accept Kahane's vision are considered anti-Semites.

When the face of Israel turned from Golda Meir to Meir Kahane world support began to bleed away and will continue to until the greater part of world Jewry comes to its senses and realizes that a small minority of a tiny fraction of the world's population is taking Biblical literalism in some truly dangerous directions. The Book of Joshua should not be taken as God's Playbook. And Russian and Brooklyn born fascism doesn't look any more attractive because it comes adorned with a prayer shawl.

by Bruce Webb 2009-12-24 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Likud is not Israel

Today people who don't accept Kahane's vision are considered anti-Semites.


by Steve M 2009-12-24 06:19AM | 0 recs
Meir and Kahane

The problem with Kahane isn't that his explicit call to rid the region of all "Arabs" in order to create a theocratic (read halakhic state) has become dominant.  Rather, iit's that he and the messianic thugs of Gush Emunim were able to pull the entire spectrum of the debate rightward, partially because anyone on the right who disavowed his ideology acquired a veneer of moderation.

As for Golda Meir, she was utterly incapable of recognizing that Palestinians identified as a legitimately distinct Arab people whose interest in expressing their national rights in a political framework wasn't just going to melt away.  I'm pretty sure that while Golda would have embraced the current Saudi/Arab League proposal before 1967, PM Meir of the 70s would have tossed it over her shoulder into the wastebasket.  This is someone who repeatedly declaimed: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian." Such chauvinistic political blindness has contributed more to the entrenchment of the conflict than its solution.  I'm not sure Golda would have embraced the Geneva initiative or Olmert's plan.  She might have supported Oslo, but we know its critical flaws all too well now.  And many of its architects have proven either deluded or cynical in hindsight.

by Strummerson 2009-12-24 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Likud is not Israel

Today people who don't accept Kahane's vision are considered anti-Semites....When the face of Israel turned from Golda Meir to Meir Kahane

The single scariest thing I have read this entire year is your comment.

Do you really believe any of what you wrote?

by NJ Liberal 2009-12-25 04:29AM | 0 recs

Anti-Zionism is rising within the liberal grassroots / netroots and you, in fact, are one such person promoting that toxic view.

Naturally, by doing so, you set yourself up for conflict with most Jewish people and with supporters of the Jewish state.

This is surprising to you?

by Karmafish 2009-12-24 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

You might want to define what you mean by Zionism, because if by that you mean the dissolution of the Palestinian people and the remainder of their lands, 22% of original Palestine, for the sake of Greater Israel, an Israel from the Jordan to the sea, then I would say that that Zionism deserves to be disparaged and hopefully eventually nullified.

Your perspective on Zionism is the pure Likud variety which we now are seeing implemented in the Palestinian territories: unifed Jerusalem (no Palestinian capital), the Jordan Valley is Israel, and no settlements will be withdrawn. The Palestinians can have economic justice in a group of bantustans comprising an Apartheid state ala South Africa ca 1980s.

If being anti-Zionist means being against this crap, then I am certainly an anti-Zionist as any liberal American would be. Otherwise, Israel, which exists as a Zionist state, needs to withdraw to the 1967 borders and permit a real Palestinian state to emerge, with its border abut Jordan in 22% of what is left of their country.

Actually from your previous remarks, what you really mean is that being anti-Zionist, in this case, against the Likud, is being anti-Semitic. And that's not particularly subtle.

by MainStreet 2009-12-24 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

I don't know why you're so reluctant to admit that you are opposed to the definition of Zionism that goes like "there ought to be a Jewish state, called Israel." That's Zionism as most people understand it.  But instead you want to hide behind this wordplay about how "if Zionism means the right to butcher children in cold blood, then gee, I'm an anti-Zionist!"

It's clear from your previous posts that you are against the existence of a Jewish state, that you see the very notion as racist, and that you think every real liberal ought to agree with you.  So don't be bashful.  Own up to your positions and quit setting up strawmen.

by Steve M 2009-12-24 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

Pure bullshit, Steve. Try reading the diary before responding. Your definition of Zionism is not the current one being implement by the Israeli government: The Likud Charter. I diaried on it recently. If that Charter is what you really mean by your timid version of Zionism, then, as a liberal American, which you might very well be against it yourself.

Quit kidding. This diary points directly at people like yourself, who defend the military occupation and colonialism of Paletine that continues. That is what you support when you claim that people who criticize it are anti-Semitic. Like this Karma guy, you spurn the idea that what Israel is doing over there, in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, or in Gaza is wrong, is horrible and inhumane.

Sad admission. What do you think of Jimmy Carter's work in Palestine as part of the Elders, by the way? Don't answer. It's okay.

by MainStreet 2009-12-24 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

I don't recognize the authority of the Likud Party to redefine Zionism, sorry.  It is kind of comical how in your mind, the stated policy positions of the elected government of Israel mean everything, but the stated policy positions of the elected government of the Palestinians mean absolutely nothing.

Every position you attribute to me in your second paragraph is completely false.  The part where you put words in my mouth, based on absolutely nothing, and then say "sad admission" provides some comic relief, at least.  Tell me, was it fun persuading yourself that you're right about me?

Now, I'll repeat myself: It's clear from your previous posts that you are against the existence of a Jewish state, that you see the very notion as racist, and that you think every real liberal ought to agree with you.  If you view any of those statements as unfair characterizations of your position, just say so.

by Steve M 2009-12-24 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

I'm saying so. "Existence" or threatened existence is one of Israel's latest propaganda memes, which you have bought into. Israel has been a state for over 60 years. And now you claim that the concept of a "Jewish state" is not racist, in spite of the fact that Israel's population is 20% nonJewish, and that there are about 20 segregation laws on the books, upheld by the High Court, segregating Jewish and Arab citizens. It is a situation akin to Jim Crow segregation in America before 1964.

What makes you and the others who have contributed comments above in defense of Israel is that you never, never refer to the root causes of this conflict. Terms like "occupation" or "military occupation" and "colonialism" which has continued for over 40 years, are avoided. It reminds me that most of these defensive comments come from a right wing Likud perspective and display the propaganda points taken out of the hasbara book written for Israel by Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster. "Don't say occupied territories, say disputed territories."

The other fault is engaging in killing the messenger rather than defending the status quo, or deviating from the reality by claiming that it is all about Hamas, an organization born in the late 1980s to fight the occupation and colonialism.

People are just not that stupid and the recent pronouncements by the EU suggests that many nations are no longer willing to play dumb for Israel's sake, unlike the US and Britain. Given last year's Gaza massacres, it is evident that Israel practices state terrorism, and has been doing so for many years in order to sustain the continuing colonialism of Palestinian lands. B'Tselem has the death numbers on both sides, all caused by the colonialism, nexessarily enforced by a military occupation. There would be no military occupation were it not for the colonialism.

Support that if you will but do it honestly and stop avoiding the reality.

by MainStreet 2009-12-25 03:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

Ok, so if I follow you, you believe the idea of a Jewish state is racist, and you think every liberal ought to agree with you.  But you're not opposed to the existence of a racist state.  Right?

by Steve M 2009-12-25 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

People are free to agree or disagree. Otherwise I'm not getting it.

by MainStreet 2009-12-25 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

But if people disagree, you write them off as "uneducated."

You're not getting it because your mind is completely closed to the idea that there's anything to get.

by NJ Liberal 2009-12-25 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

When comments are posted which assume the truth of an Israelized version of the history unawares that it is just lies and propaganda, then the uneducated label is well deserved. Such people accept hasbara talking point as facts and insist that that version of the history is valid and true. Israel spends many million of our money each year distorting the IP reality, and that has been going on since 1982, and the Lebanon invasion and the killing of 20,000 people. Israel at that time was not ready for world's disparagement.

The most obvious recent falsehood that is being propagated and is central to Israeli propaganda is that Israel is somehow a victim and the Palestinians are terrorists, a notion presently focused on Hamas. People who are uneducated about this conflict share the feature of never mentioning the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, whose sole purpose is to continue their colonization. It is as if they don't know what is going on, hence, are uneducated about the reality. Israel is not a victim but the perpetrator land theft and at times state terrorism, the killing of hundreds and hundreds of civilians as in Gaza recently, or even weekly in the Palestinian territories. Those are not resistance fighters to occupation they kill, but terrorists.

But when we greet a person like Lakrosse, who continually bleeps Israeli propaganda as he does, he is far from uneducated. He knows what he is doing, and he has been berated for it many times by many members. In my belief, he's a GIYUS operator here to defend the twisted reality Israel wants us all to believe. Also take his Islamophobic diary recently posted. Pure unadulterated bigotry, intended to defame Muslim, and that would include Iranians and Palestinians.

But don't fret or take it personally. Take as a clue that you need to read further about this conflict, as a clue that you may be duped by a well orchestrated propaganda effort intended to cover the reality of Israeli colonialism.

by MainStreet 2009-12-26 12:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

And once again, you answer my questions by saying that your opinion is the only valid opinion, and anyone who doesn't agree is uneducated.

Perhaps I can put it as condescendingly as you did: You have been duped by the Hamas propaganda. Get help immediately.

Obviously, you have no interest in discussion, only in agreement. And that is exactly the root of the IP conflict. So go ahead. Continue to preach from the mountaintops. You'll only succeed in further alienating people with whom you otherwise may have been able to reach agreement.

by NJ Liberal 2009-12-26 02:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

Hamas doesn't have a propaganda bureau or anything on a par with Israeli hasbara services. For that matter, they don't even have a website as far as I can tell.

Quite a silly argument you are making, otherwise.

Look up Peace, Propaganda,& The Promised Land on youtube as I suggested earlier. You will learn a great deal about matters you still remain oblivious too. Okay, so the word I wanted to use was "uneducated" but I didn't.

by MainStreet 2009-12-26 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

And there are plenty of words I wanted to use, but I didn't. Your thickheadedness and unwillingness to listen to opposing viewpoints is noted. Just two questions, though:

1) In another discussion, you were asked, not by me, whether you are an Arab or a Muslim. You did not answer. Will you now?

2) Of which part of the world do you consider yourself to be "MainStreet?"

by NJ Liberal 2009-12-26 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: so are you pro hamas?

Respond to the points in the comment.

by MainStreet 2009-12-25 03:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure.

PS: You might do well to read the Joshua Howard, Cecile Sarasky, and Heathlander articles in order to get some bearings on yourself. My take is that you are 180 degrees from all of them. That's enough for me to know where you are coming from.

It is becoming very hard to defend Israel's behavior this past year, even this past decade, and the old anti-Semitic charge, as two articles indicate, is doing nothing more than watering down the legitimate concept of anti-Semitism.

by MainStreet 2009-12-24 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: oh yeah - speaks for me !

You need to get into this history in more depth than you are now demonstrating.

The document called A Clean Break was developed by self-admitted Jewish Neocons for the first Netanyahu government in 1996. Not all Neocons are Jewish of course but those who participated in A Clean Break did have critical roles in the Iraq invasion, like Pearle and Feith.

Clinton did more damage to the prospect of IP peace during the 1990s by permitting the colonization of the West Bank and other territories to double, in spite of the Oslo Accords. The Camp David negotiations in 2000 and afterward at Taba were a hoax, and Clinton and his henchman, Dennis Ross, were involved in blaming Arafat. Barak, in 2005, finally spilled the beans on this hoax and admitted that he would not have been able to remove any settlements from the West Bank or elsewhere, and that Taba was "nothing, just low level people talking." (see Barak on the Charlie Rose Show, Jan 25 2005) WE WERE NOT ONLY NOT CLOSE, BUT NO WHERE.

It was the Israelis that intended to take the West Bank and other territories that stopped the peace process. Sharon led the colonial process as Minister of Agriculture. In 2005, Barak said that no one, not even his own party, Labor, the so called left wing party, would have voted to remove a single settlement. Arafat was just taken for a ride.

Finally, the suicide bombings during the second Intifada would not have occurred had Sharon and the military not entered the West Bank and killed off at least 300 innocent civilians beforehand. Like others you are completely duped by the false reality created for your consumption. The Palestinians acted in retaliation for the killing of their civilians, especially nearly 90 children, most of whom were shot in the head. That does not justify those bombings, but at least you can understand why they occurred.

by MainStreet 2009-12-24 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: sorry, youre as wromg as you can be

You're not the only one who bought into this hoax, so don't feel stupid. Look up the Barak interview, which I guess you prefer not to. He will burst your illusions.

by MainStreet 2009-12-25 02:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Widespread Anti-Semitism

I am neither Commentor A nor Commentor B cited above. I am Commentor C.

Whenever I raised an opposing viewpoint, Mainstreet would counter with "you are ignorant of the situation." As far as this diarist is concerned, there is only one set of facts, and those are his.

Now, he states,

It is becoming very hard to defend Israel's behavior this past year

No, it is, in his mind, IMPOSSIBLE to defend, because he simply won't hear any opposing arguments.

Mainstreet, whether he wants to admit it or not, is as anti Semitic as he is pro Palestinian. Note, for example, a couple of comments above this one, how he dismisses

and somehow did "neo con' become a synonym for pro israel on the liberal web?

im not jewish, but i felt the pain and bite of anti-semitism every time i saw that implied.

im as pr middle east peace as anybody - and think that clintons work there was his greatest and least appreciated -

and i have nothing but sympathy for displaced palestinians - but it wasnt the israelis that destroyed those chances in the 90s  -
no f-ing way...the israelis were ready for the final deal - peace for land - 67 borders - split Jerusalem...


AND btw, its not israelis blowing up restaurants and grocery stores in hafa either...

You need to get into this history in more depth than you are now demonstrating.

In his mind, there is no middle ground. there is only total support of Palestinians (whose bombers are not murderers, but are freedom fighters), and total condemnation of Israelis, who are Jews.

Mainstreet is certainly not the only "liberal blogger" guilty of this, but he's the noisiest these days. It is no wonder to me that the liberal wing of the party is suffering, and that Lieberman (a pox on his house) has the support that he does.

by NJ Liberal 2009-12-25 04:49AM | 1 recs
Re: Widespread Anti-Semitism

I really don't have time for this kind thing. Try reading the diary (and the critics, Howard, Sarasky, Heathlander), which is simply an exposition of the reports of others about claims that the left wing blogosphere is anti-Semitic.

It is fortunate that the blogs cited, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Salon are not being intimidated by the likes of your kind by charges of anti-Semitism and continuing to tell the truths that the mainstream US media are fearful of publishing. None of them and other liberal/progressive blogs are just not going away.

There's nothing more to say. When you resort to killing the messenger tactics it is already evident that what is being said is too powerful to ignore.

by MainStreet 2009-12-25 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Widespread Anti-Semitism

And once again, you are totally dismissive of a differing opinion. It is precisely that "my way or the highway" thinking that perpetuates the violence.

Try stepping down from your high and mighty perch and  listening to what other people have to say. You may learn something.

by NJ Liberal 2009-12-25 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Widespread Anti-Semitism

I don't think you have much to teach me, thank you. But as far as I can tell, you have not had any difficulty disagreeing. What is difficult about taking you seriously is that much of what you have to say has been discredited as talking points from the hasbara line, which says, anything goes just never mention the occupation or colonization that is going on. It explains too much.

by MainStreet 2009-12-25 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Widespread Anti-Semitism

I don't think you have much to teach me, thank you. But as far as I can tell, you have not had any difficulty disagreeing. What is difficult about taking you seriously is that much of what you have to say has been discredited as talking points from the hasbara line, which says, anything goes just never mention the occupation or colonization that is going on. It explains too much. Kill the messenger, and anything anti-Israel is anti-Semitic.

by MainStreet 2009-12-25 09:19AM | 0 recs
you know who else is also mad
about this [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=664069 study]?
by Lakrosse 2009-12-31 06:17AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads