Anti-Oedipus' Own Authors Considered It A Disappointing Failure

Deleuze was the sane one obviously..

Guattari was also involved in more “traditional” politics. Shortly after May ’68, the French government decided to throw money at leftist intellectuals to research and identify areas where the government was fucking up. A research organization that Guattari founded, CERFI, was on the receiving end of a large amount of government funding. Some of these funds went to CERFI’s core group of researchers, but the rest went into funding whatever-the-fuck/who cares.:

All the leftists in Paris came with completely bogus projects. Felix supported them blindly. We bought a camera for one person, a motorcycle for another…we gave money to someone who came to us saying, ‘I need five thousand francs for an abortion tomorrow.’ ‘Send the money back to us when you can, ok, here you go.’ And they never came back.

Attached: 1448076996801.jpg (500x600, 97K)

#12 Deleuze worked in a philosophy department headed by Foucault that lost its ability to give out diplomas

After the events of May ’68, Paris-VIII, also known as Vincennes, was created to be a refuge for radical students. A committee of 20 peoples that included Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes set out to model Vincennes after MIT. Michel Foucault was named the head of the philosophy department. While Deleuze could not initially work at Vincennes, he later joined a staff that was comprised of Alain Badiou, Jacques Ranciere, Jean-Francois Lyotard and Judith Miller.

If you wondered what could go wrong in a department filled with radicals and communists, the answer is everything. Students tore open ceilings to see “if the police had bugged the rooms” and matters of administration were often seen as fascist coups. Department members invited friends to teach classes, many of whom would not even show up for class.

When Ranciere and Badiou decided that “not showing up” was pretty good grounds to fire these teachers, the victims immediately declared it “a Bolshevik coup and alerted Deleuze and Lyotard, who saw it as the start of a witch hunt. ‘They organized a sort of hunger strike in Deleuze’s seminar.'”

And grades? Capitalist bullshit! Judith Miller openly declared “certain collective have decided not to grade students on the basis of written workers, others have decided to give a diploma to anyone who thinks they deserve one.” If you just thought “Hey! That’s something I shouldn’t openly announce to the public”, then congratulations, you’re right. The French government swiftly declared that the Vincennes philosophy department could no longer award national diplomas.

Attached: 1558533105626.jpg (1170x719, 84K)

Anybody who reads a little bit of The Fascism of the Potato and doesn't come away thinking that Badiou fundamentally misunderstands what D&G are trying to get at is probably just incapable of comprehending anything that they read.
>Hurr they keep trying to impose their fascist arboreal thinking on everything, fucking boogie fucks

Last but not least excerpt from the article:
It wasn’t very long after the publication of “Rhizome” that the philosophy department turned into a veritable Game of Thrones. Badiou, wary of Deleuze’s popularity, led a group of Maoists who pledged their loyalty to Badiou, whom they referred to as the “Great Helmsman.”
Who let Grand Moff Tarkin teach philosophy?
Who let Grand Moff Tarkin teach philosophy?

Badiou declared Deleuze an “enemy of the people” and penned several anti-Deleuze articles. Under the psuedonym “Georges Peyol”, Badiou penned “The Fascism of the Potato,” because if I know anything about resisting fascism, it usually involves declaring enemies of the people and creating a cult of personality around yourself.

Speaking of fascism, Badiou and his gang of merry Maoist decided to stage invasions of Deleuze’s class room.

At the height of the conflict, Badious “men” would prevent Deleuze from finishing his seminar, he would put his hat back on to his head to indicate surrender. Badiou himself would occasionally turn up at Deleuze’s seminar to interrupt him, as he admits in the book he wrote on Deleuze in 1997.

Badiou, who is still totally not a fascist, created brigades to “monitor the political content of other classes in the philosophy department.” Deleuze responded to most interventions calmly, and would avoid conflict even when “groups of up to a dozen people bent on picking a fight would show up.”

Sometimes these brigades would show up with copies of Nietzsche to ask trick questions in an effort to embarrass Deleuze. And when that didn’t work:

Often the “brigade” would end up imposing the “Peoples Rule,” commanding the student to quit Deleuze’s classroom on the pretext of a meeting in Lecture Hall 1 or a rally in support of a workers’ struggle. Deleuze reacted calmly, pretending to agree with them and retaliating with irony.

And when that also didn’t work:

Only once did [Deleuze] get angry, when he found on his desk a tract by a “death squad” advocating suicide.”

Attached: alain.jpg (460x276, 18K)

Badiou is pretty widely acknowledged nowadays as a hack. Why Maoism, of all the left political philosophies out there, became trendy in France in the late 60s is beyond me.

>Why Maoism, of all the left political philosophies out there, became trendy in France in the late 60s is beyond me.
If you think about what was happening around the world, what was happening in China, and what was *understood* about what was happening in China, it starts to make sense.
>Stalinism: out of vogue, everyone knows about the gulags
>Gaullism: untenable because French overseas holdings keep overthrowing French rule
>Maoism: intellectual high ground based on its inherent anti-capitalism and 3rd-worldism
>Dengist reforms haven't happened yet, China is still objectively speaking in the middle of a Communist experiment
>The excesses of the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward can still be brushed off as 'historically necessary' because the conflict between Communist countries and capitalist countries hasn't ended yet
>Maoism offers a refreshing alternative to Marxism-Leninism
>Lots of Chinese Communists had been educated in France during and before the Communist revolution in China
It makes perfect sense if you think about it.

Politically perhaps, but his work on ontology is pretty well regarded

[citation needed]
Badiou's concept of Event is preposterously restrictive and specific when you get down to it, although he does have some good ideas (not many!).

Is there one sane philosopher/writer?

Hegel

I've read Eckermann's Conversations With Goethe. There is one little part of the book where Hegel appears and says one sentence that is probably among the smarter things that were said during the book, which is quite an achievement.

Is there a good biography on Hegel? I think I've read somewhere that he would talk in complex sentences too. That was always an interesting fact for me.

Also, what's the starting point in Hegel's bibliography?

Attached: 310329.jpg (225x350, 30K)

Read Charles Taylor's Hegel and then read Beiser's Hegel, then buy a copy of Pinkard's Hegel and set it on fire while reading Beiser's rebukes of analytic pseudo-Hegelians in the journal Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain (1995-1996)

The Open Society And Its Enemies by Karl Popper is the only book on Hegel (and his student Marx) that you'll ever need!

Are they all going to tell me that Hegel kickstarted Communism and Nationalism?

>inb4 basically that

Karl Popper is, yes

RD Laing's (and Gregory Bateson) theories on antipsychiatry and schizophrenia were a key influence on Deleuze and Guattari (and Foucault), this is often ignored for some reason. I am not saying there was a sinister CIA plot to destroy the family unit, I'm just saying its known for a fact Laing worked on ESALEN and the Tavistock institute,(confirmed ''deep state" organs) Bateson in the OAS during the war, he attended the Macy conferences, He was well acquainted with Wiener, McCullough and Von Neumann. Bateson and Laing were both clinical practitioners at the Palo Alto Mental Research institute, applying game theory and cybernetics to family therapy, just as the think tanks were figuring out new ways to apply game theory and cybernetics to economics and the biopolitical management of the masses. Bateson liked to talk about autopoietic systems self organising through difference and repetition. If you read anti oedipus you are downloading CIA tech into your brain.
youtube.com/watch?v=A7j1b6F3MFU

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-25 at 2.28.29 AM.png (414x390, 213K)

t. Trumpista

>Karl Popper
Lmao, he was a hack. Don't read him, .

no way, Trump is a CIA asset

This has to be bait; Popper was a neo-liberal retard who misunderstood Hegel.

Kojeve's introduction to the reading of Hegel, dude was a russian emigre, megalomaniac cult leader, a founding father of the European Union taught Lacan and Bataille and Queneau and Fukuyama and Macron everything, Kojeve upheld post war US as the realisation of the universal state, a true classless society based on equal access to consumption, he also claimed, who knows with what degree of irony, to be the last stalinist and a greek god in the flesh, he actually was a soviet spy though

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-25 at 3.04.31 AM.png (279x281, 112K)

Most Hegel scholarship post-Kojeve is actually Kojeve scholarship, the world is still recovering from this Absolute Unit's actions

not an argument, CIA, your discrediting tactics won't work here

BASED

Judith Miller is the daughter of Georges Bataille's wife Sylvia and Jacques Lacan. Was bataille into cuck stuff? wouldn't surprise me.

Sylvie was an actress, known for her role in Renoir's Partie de Campagne and the famous erotic swing sequence.
youtube.com/watch?v=82lx4EuczpI

sincerely based.

I'm not even kidding, absolutely based.

Bump

Absolutely based

Absolutely based

not even going to lie, this is epicly based

>Kojève studied and used Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, Latin and Classical Greek. He was also fluent in French, German, Russian and English.[5]

absolutely

>Kojève died

based

Anti-Oedipus also known as Bokos Yea Forums memed you into reading

>In “Intersecting Lives”, the author notes that Deleuze was disappointed by his work:

It IS shit so...

>giving tax money to shitposters

>tfw zizek took the "going from marx back to hegel" from Kojeve

First day on Yea Forums?

33rd
why do you ask?

Because your post was bad

that's common tho

And people think the analytics were autists.

Everything about this is based and if you disagree you're a fidget

Ideally universities would just be ripped Mediterraneans throwing plucked chickens at erudite professors

After Lacan had got wind that Guattari was writing “Anti-Oedipus”, Lacan curiously inquired about its contents. Guattari, not being an idiot, realized that he could not reveal to Lacan a book which attacked his entire academic career. “That was clearly not an option,” Guattari said in an interview, “Deleuze mistrusted Lacan like the plague.”

Guattari tried to assuage Lacan by lying, saying that it was Deleuze’s fault for only wanting to share a finished project. Lacan tried to investigate the matter by asking to meet Deleuze in person, who instead offered to talk to Lacan on the phone. At this point, Lacan decided the best course of action was to liquor up Guattari at a fancy restaurant so he could spill the beans on the new book.

At the dinner, Guattari did in fact explain the thematic elements of “Anti-Oedipus.” Lacan was, on the surface, receptive to the new ideas. Guattari tried to lie his ass off to Lacan to make his new ideas seem more Lacanian then they really were. Lacan eventually discovered the true content of the book, and that dinner was the last time the two ever meet.

When Lacan discovered how aggressive the book was with respect to his ideas, all the bridges were definitively burned. Not only would the two never see each other gain, but Lacan and his friends also started circulating a series of rumors about Guattari’s practice to discredit him in the psychoanalytic circles.

When “Anti-Oedipus” was finally published, Lacan censored any discussion of the book among his students. He forbade any debate about the book, and never mentioned it in his seminar. One student of Lacan noted that Lacan took “Anti-Oedipus” as “a personal attack that was all the more hurtful because he had made some gestures towards Deleuze, whom he respected.”

Attached: 28869991_2004093246272778_4422719427477241856_n.jpg (460x638, 26K)

In addition to this:
One might find it slightly ironic that the author who philosophically destroyed the project of psychoanalysis and Lacan was kind of infatuated with the man. Guattari religiously attended Lacan’s seminar and became a patient of Lacan for a hefty fee. Guattari eventually ordered all of La Borde’s staff to attend Lacan’s seminar and start analysis with Lacan “if they wanted to keep working at the clinic.”

During the 1950s, Guattari was a strict Lacanian. Even his friends would call him “Lacan” as a joke. In 1964, Lacan chose Guattari as a lieutenant at the newly created Freudian School of Paris. Guattari was sure that Lacan anoint him as a “preferred partner”

Lacan met with his patients for sessions often lasting as little as four minutes. Guattari, opting for the premium-package, paid for the pleasure of driving Lacan home. The in-ride discussion was, according to Lacan, “part of the analysis.”

During one such couch-session with Lacan, Guattari mentioned to Lacan that Roland Barthes was interested in publishing one of Guattari’s papers in Communications.

Guattari talked to Lacan about it while he was on the couch, but the master was indignant: What? Why not publish it in his journal, Scilicet? Lacan ordered his patient to choose his camp. Guattari was forced to comply and asked Barthes to remove his text from the issue.

Well that’s not so bad, Lacan had taken a special interest in Guattari and wanted to take him under his wing. Publishing Guattari’s work under his own journal instead of Barthes’ isn’t too bad. But Lacan never published Guattari’s paper.

Attached: 1558263498557.jpg (900x731, 162K)

delouse and guitar are advanced. either iron out the hipster razzle dazzle to avoid resentiment or keep the polished tabloid kitsch in its place for what it is, until it gets better, if it even does. lol

Post critical theory eter riffin memes

Attached: 1B8FC51C-E9A1-4D8E-8636-81F456BEFDF8.jpg (1140x788, 259K)

>Littlefinger's hand
>Arabic signature
funneh

>ect
bruh

>delouse and guitar
this whole post is gibberish but this is the outstanding bit of nonsense

Lots of crazy people but Deleuze sounds like a decent person. Am I wrong to assume this, did he do any fucked up sjit too?

Depends on what you mean by "fucked up"

In 1955, Guattari started working at La Borde, a psychiatric clinic in France.

La Borde wasn’t your average psych clinic. The clinic’s constitution imagined the organization as a “communist utopia.” This utopia required the disposal of formalized bureaucracy. Staff members were required to rotate in and out of manual labor to destabilize the hierarchies that existed between the “intellectual” staff and the “laboring” staff. Salaries were debated and decided in democratic committee meetings which, as you can imagine, often devolved into a shit-show.

La Borde Guattari

Patient and staff co-mingling was highly encouraged. Communal spaces were set up for patients and doctors alike to plays cards or read magazines. Nurses were often indistinguishable from patients. Patients were even given responsibility over administrative tasks and could serve on the board of the clinic. One patient even served as treasurer and handled La Borde’s bank account.

When Guattari showed up, he quickly took on a leadership role. He described his demeanor towards staff as “rigidly militant.” This certainly wasn’t Guattari’s first rodeo. As the head of a pro-Tito worker’s brigade in 1949, he “confiscated the meal tickets of any recalcitrant workers who complained or dragged their feet when it came to carrying stones or digging trenches”. At La Borde, Guattari was known to order patients who refused to get out of bed to partake in some of the scheduled activities. That might sound kind of shitty, until the book goes on to describe the scene at La Borde:

Daily life was busy at the clinic: prior to the use of narcoleptic and drug therapy, conflicts between patients often erupted into fights, and it was not unusual for people to get beaned by coffee pots of tools.

Guattari eventually loosened up on his authoritarian tendencies after landing in a hospital as part of a draft-dodging scheme (Guattari was avoiding being sent to Algeria). As a patient, Guattari realized that life under the rule of tyrannical nurses was not so great. The realization followed him back to La Borde.

This is more about D than G but still, worth nothing. Next post will contain the bit of the article about Deleuze being schizophobic.
Guattari would often invite his friends and fellow academics to hang out in La Borde where they took up arts and crafts, worked, and even started careers at La Borde. As a result, La Borde turned into a hot-spot for intellectuals, draft-dodgers and, of course, the mentally ill.

One of those friends, Jean-Baptiste Thierree was a Maoist who performed magic. Thierree received treatment from Guattari while performing magic shows for other patients . One day, Thierree had an idea: he was going to write to Charlie Chaplin’s daughter and start a circus with her.

Victoria Chaplin not only responded, she married Jean-Baptiste. And the circus? Well, the two started it at La Borde. Because if “crippling mental illness” calls for one thing, it’s more clowns and loud noises.

The Thierree-Chaplin couple created particularly intense activities at La Borde with their circus tents, horses, wild animals, and snakes; the patients were invited to participate.

That was followed by integrating catatonic patients into the circus. Grossly irressponsible? Maybe, but it kind of worked in treating the patient.

I [Jean-Baptise] had this idea of masking him [the catonic patient] from head to toe and when he was like that he did whatever I wanted him to do. I always asked him, ‘Why do you move when you are masked?’ He never answered me, and one day he said. ‘because it’s not serious’.

When May ’68 erupted Guattari encouraged his patients to attend. This was the last straw for the director of the clinic, who soon kicked out Guattari because of his rampant shenanigans

It was at La Borde that Guattari acquired the experiences and knowledge necessary to theorize the figure of the schizophrenic and schizoanalysis.

Attached: guattari's mental institution.jpg (669x700, 118K)

Many have accused Deleuze and Guattari of trivializing the plight of the deranged and being detached from their material realities. For Guattari, nothing is further from the truth. For Deleuze, this is sort of true. Deleuze’s friend Jean-Pierre Muyard was a medical student who introduced Deleuze to many ideas on psychosis and madness. Muyard recounts:

He [Deleuze] said ‘I discuss psychosis and madness, but I don’t know anything about it from the inside.’ But he was also phobic about deranged people and couldn’t have spent even an hour at La Borde.

When Deleuze would visit Guattari, he “avoided the unbearable madness at La Borde.” One dinner in particular with Felix was interrupted by a some chaos as La Borde. Deleuze’s response was less commendable:

We got a call from La Borde saying that a guy had set fire to the chateau chapel and run off into the woods. Gilles blanched, I froze, and Felix called for help to find this guy. At that point, Gilles said to me, ‘how can you stand those schizos’?”

Attached: 1448120642161.jpg (540x562, 108K)

blow it out your ass

duke nukem reference!

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that Deleuze was an absolute pseud.

God wish i was part of that

You can be a hypocrite without being a pseud

>Students tore open ceilings to see “if the police had bugged the rooms”
Well? Were the police bugging the rooms?
>and matters of administration were often seen as fascist coups.
Administration *is* fascism, though.
What's supposed to be wrong with this? All university departments should be run this way.

Sounds like legit fun t.b.h. Badiou is a bit of a cunt but that's not surprising. Deleuze however comes out as surprisingly based.

>Sometimes these brigades would show up with copies of Nietzsche to ask trick questions in an effort to embarrass Deleuze.
>And when that didn’t work

Nice try but seems like old Gigi had his bases covered.

>Badiou is a bit of a cunt
"A bit?" Badiou is everything wrong with the surviving members of his generation.

Based. must read.

Situationism is peak '68 compared to D&G and Badiou. Read the SI Anthology, Society of the Spectacle, Commentary, and Revolution of Everyday Life.

What are the essential '1968 In France' texts?

>That was followed by integrating catatonic patients into the circus. Grossly irressponsible? Maybe, but it kind of worked in treating the patient.
>I always asked him, ‘Why do you move when you are masked?’ He never answered me, and one day he said. ‘because it’s not serious’.

Extremely based.

damn so this is what La Chinoise is about

Well I'm a bougie aristotelian moderate at heart, I like nuanced terminology, sue me.

fugging arborealist go to hell

OK so with threads like these I'm always curious about who is participating because of how niche and fluent people are. Are you guys grad students or what?

I have a B.A. in philosophy and history and am working on becoming a teacher.

I'm gonna arboreal your mum.

Seriously though is arboreal fetishism a thing ? Sounds dope as fuck.

I'm a PhD candidate in statistics but in fariness I've only shitposted itt so far.

Also those guys are not that niche in France.

'arboreal' is the opposite of 'rhizomatic'

Nice, what are you thinking about studying in the PhD? I'm about to finish my MsC in Statistics, with an honestly pretty boring thesis about data science methods applied to brain connectomes analysis.

Long live Mao Mao.

youtube.com/watch?v=k4mrkP3xgdc

arboreal fetishism is just missionary sex

>It wasn’t very long after the publication of “Rhizome” that the philosophy department turned into a veritable Game of Thrones
>Deleuze when he finds out that Badiou's People's Councils have once again vandalized the college's only breastplate stretcher

Attached: 1558314653376.gif (350x200, 2.86M)

OP, please tell me where did you find these beautiful articles

What is a rhizome and is rhizomatic fetishism a thing and how can I join in ?

google, this was the only article I could find on critical-theory.com that was even remotely interesting. Most of the site is clickbait. I'm considering buying the biography the quotes come from because I've recently acquired in interest in 20th century French philosophy that I didn't have when I was actually studying philosophy qua a student of philosophy.

I am a schizophrenic autodidact who has attended five colleges and is almost done with several Associate's of Arts and a Bachelor's of Arts.

See:

>autodidact who has attended five colleges

Attached: 1505975556278.gif (560x240, 1.1M)

>Only once did [Deleuze] get angry, when he found on his desk a tract by a “death squad” advocating suicide.
Too bad he decided to do so (allegedly) anyway.

Biography? What is the name? Also doesn't biography usually write about one person? Why there's plenty of people, Lacan, Deleuze, Guattari, Badiou, etc?

therein lies the schiz

The link is in the OP user

Did you just not read the OP?

Just read PoS. Alternatively approach through SoL or Encyclopedias.

>Nice, what are you thinking about studying in the PhD?

I hate it so far, glad I'm almost done. But I was cucked into accepting a joint academia-private sector program. It's pretty common in my country right now, and it was advertised as the best of both world. I was lukewarm but I thought this would be my only shot so I applied. It turned out to be mostly grunt work (intellectual grunt work, but grunt work nonetheless). I'm implementing contemporary statistical method (nonparemtric statistics) in R and applying it to data bases of interest for my private employer. It could be interesting, but in practice it's mostly code-monkeying with a minimal amount of (admittedly research-level) math.

Maybe I'm not completely fair as my work would make no sense without the statistics behind it and you couldn't really do it without a master-level understanding of statistics I guess. At least the motivation and workflow are yielded directly by a research problematic, thanks god I'm nowhere near R&D, but still in essence I'm doing CS bachelor-level stuff with stats and maths sprinkled here and there. I keep thinking a senior CS major occasionaly tutored by a first-year grad student in stats could do my job, which is kind of depressing when you consider I like topology, algebra and probability theory.

TL;DR: Pay real close attention to the subject, just because it looks shiny doesn't mean it's really interesting. Ask what kind of task you will be expected to perform. Also, even more importantly, make sure your advisor is competent at monitoring PhD student and a decent human being to boot. Fortunately mine is great, or I would already have dropped/committed a suicide attack in the name of ISIS out of spite.

incredibly blessed post

Attached: 1508355240707.jpg (1280x720, 390K)

You can be qualified to do difficult work and still not be satisfied by doing that work, at least you have the nerve to stick with it despite the apparently dull and soul-breaking nature of your work.

Thanks user you're probably right. Still I have barely done any math in the past 3 years (despite being offically a PhD student in mathematics, it makes me want to laugh maniacally when I think about it). I've probably regressed back to my first year of gradschool level already, if not worse. If I wanted wagecuck drudgery I would have stopped studying past the fourth year. The pay isn't even that good. But I don't like to leave things unfinished and my sister has a huge tuition to pay that my parents will have trouble paying for her, so I'll this shit through the end. But may whatever god with tutelage over silly tasks have mercy on my soul.

Man, do I share your pain. I'm working at a bank right now in (what was supposed to be) a data scientist position where I thought I would be using all these amazing neural network and non-supervised techniques to detect fraud and money laundering, when in fact, as you put it, most of my job is mind numbing code-monkeying in SQL and Python, with so little actual statistics behind it that it makes me ashamed to say I'm even a data scientist at all.

But oh well, things will get better for us, in a way or another. I'll make sure to keep your advice in mind when (if) I decide to apply for a PhD.

>Still I have barely done any math in the past 3 years (despite being offically a PhD student in mathematics, it makes me want to laugh maniacally when I think about it). I've probably regressed back to my first year of gradschool level already

Jesus, I have a felling this is a reality for soooo many MsC/PhDs that end up going to the market instead of research or academia. It's not necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but it is definitely a bit frustrating at times.

geez, stop whining, you sound like a bunch of dirty hippies

OK I bit the bullet and bought the biography, seems interesting on the first page

When you've known the glory of general topology and find yourself forced to fill excel spreedsheets for weeks on end you may start considering yourself in position to lecture us, kiddo.

>But oh well, things will get better for us, in a way or another.
> I'll make sure to keep your advice in mind when (if) I decide to apply for a PhD.

I hope it will. Don't fall for the memes, if you're doing a PhD it has to be a commitment to something valuable. Doing it as a fall back or expecting that thing will get better can only end catastrophically.

Bumo

BA in Phil starting masters later

Iv'e thought about getting a copy of Anti-Oedipus, but I don't have much of a background in philosophy, is there any necessary reading to do before I get a copy?

I'd watch a series about drama between french intellectuals desu

>tfw no Chernobyl-esque HBO program about the history of structuralism and post-structuralism culminating in a dramatization of May 1968

Attached: 1557887123734.jpg (865x746, 40K)

Spinoza, Freud, Nietzsche, and most of the other major figures in the history of philosophy and psychoanalysis are pretty important.

>It’s a ‘people are catching on to Badiou’s charlatanry’ thread
KEEP UP THE PRESSURE

Attached: F2DA4612-9AB0-4296-A010-15EB32B650D2.jpg (682x682, 136K)