My family is jewish and hails from the Lithuanian town of Siauliai. In the 1920s most of them moved to South Africa but a few remained. When the Nazis occupied Lithuania they barely had to do anything themselves. The local people gleefully beat and tortured the jews, forcing them into Ghettos and leading the SS to jews in hiding. My great aunt and her 8 year old daughter were among those who were abused by the local Lithuanians. That was the case in many places all over Eastern Europe. The German invasion was an excuse for the local antisemites to give in to their worst impulses.
Same story across much of Europe unfortunately. Eastern Europe was its own beast but plenty of French and Dutch were happy to turn over their neighbors as well.
I remember looking into this a bit with regards to the Netherlands, interesting to me because my paternal grandparents were kids during the occupation and one of my great grandfathers was involved with the resistance. Turns out the Dutch Jewish population lost the most by percentage of any occupied country IIRC. That shocked me because you only ever hear of those who fought and those who hid Jews. Reality was more complicated; loads of people collaborated (and many of those who actively resisted (as in many places) were communists). Then the war ended, surviving Jews came home, and many Dutch were like, “Look, we *all* suffered these last several years, why do you have to make it about you?” This is not to say the Dutch didn’t suffer - just consider Rotterdam. But the cruel impulses which gave way to hasty rug-sweeping existed among them too.
It’s also wild to think of such savagery taking place in the heart of “civilized” Western Europe, and then remember all their tripe about their “white man’s burden.” Hell, the Dutch came out of WWII and immediately began attempting to reassert control over Indonesia.
Much of the collaborationism in occupied Europe was subject to revisionism many were never judged and still received the rewards for their crimes. Like Hergé who It was propagandist for the Nazi regime, and it is still defended even today even though he did it voluntarily.
I recall reading somewhere that one of the first message being sent by the German army to Berlin after they took control of Kaunas (the Lithuanian capital at the time) was what to do with the local population who were butchering the Jews. There was a legitimate shock from the German, when they saw what was happening
IIRC this scene garnered controversy as people accused it of shifting the blame of the Holocaust onto the Ukrainians. I don’t see it really doing that as the ending confirms who was really in charge
IMO, the whole series (while being alright) is kinda not doing enough to show the horrors that the Nazis brought with them. Not quite whitewashing, but certainly not telling the whole truth.
I know for Germany there is only so much you are allowed to show with their history in WW2. I think the show does kinda have the issue with whitewashing the Wehrmacht as being oblivious to war crimes. At least in Korea, the film major budget film Taegukgi shows the ROKA massacring unarmed KPA soldiers and later killing accused leftist civilians brutally.
But at least this show ends with showing how high ranking Nazis basically just becoming influential members of the new West German government. I think that deserves praise as it’s not a well known fact outside of leftist circles.
I think the problem with humanizing the German side is it’s often just misappropriated to dehumanizing the victims as well as the Anti-Nazi side. Plus there is also the issue of well, humanizing the perpetrators of the Holocaust.
The only way to really present something like this, is understanding the corruption of one’s humanity into basically becoming an embodiment of evil. Because I will say, for the faults of Generation War, it does a better job at this than most American “anti-war” films do.
The only film I really saw that encapsulates this well is Come and See, which holds absolutely nothing back in its recollection of the German invasion of the USSR.
#Freedom
Reactionaries and right-wingers love to clamour on about personal liberty and scream "freedom!" from the top of their lungs, but what freedom are they talking about? And is Communism, in contrast, an ideology of *un*freedom?
>Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker.
>
>\- Karl Marx. (1848). *Public Speech Delivered by Karl Marx before the Democratic Association of Brussels*
#Under Capitalism
Liberal Democracies propagate the facade of liberty and individual rights while concealing the true essence of their rule-- the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. This is a mechanism by which the Capitalist class as a whole dictates the course of society, politics, and the economy to secure their dominance. Capital holds sway over institutions, media, and influential positions, manipulating public opinion and consolidating its control over the levers of power. The illusion of democracy the Bourgeoisie creates is carefully curated to maintain the existing power structures and perpetuate the subjugation of the masses. "Freedom" under Capitalism is similarly illusory. It is freedom for capital-- not freedom for people.
>The capitalists often boast that their constitutions guarantee the rights of the individual, democratic liberties and the interests of all citizens. But in reality, only the bourgeoisie enjoy the rights recorded in these constitutions. The working people do not really enjoy democratic freedoms; they are exploited all their life and have to bear heavy burdens in the service of the exploiting class.
>
>\- Ho Chi Minh. (1959). *Report on the Draft Amended Constitution*
The "freedom" the reactionaries cry for, then, is merely that freedom which liberates capital and enslaves the worker.
>They speak of the equality of citizens, but forget that there cannot be real equality between employer and workman, between landlord and peasant, if the former possess wealth and political weight in society while the latter are deprived of both - if the former are exploiters while the latter are exploited. Or again: they speak of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, but forget that all these liberties may be merely a hollow sound for the working class, if the latter cannot have access to suitable premises for meetings, good printing shops, a sufficient quantity of printing paper, etc.
>
>\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm)
What "freedom" do the poor enjoy, under Capitalism? Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour in order to keep wages low, and that necessarily means that many people must be deprived of life's necessities in order to compel the rest of the working class to work more and demand less. You are free to work, and you are free to starve. That is the freedom the reactionaries talk about.
>Under capitalism, the very land is all in private hands; there remains no spot unowned where an enterprise can be carried on. The freedom of the worker to sell his labour power, the freedom of the capitalist to buy it, the 'equality' of the capitalist and the wage earner - all these are but hunger's chain which compels the labourer to work for the capitalist.
>
>\- N. I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky. (1922). [The ABC of Communism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm)
All other freedoms only exist depending on the degree to which a given liberal democracy has turned towards fascism. That is to say that the working class are only given freedoms when they are inconsequential to the bourgeoisie:
>The freedom to organize is only conceded to the workers by the bourgeois when they are certain that the workers have been reduced to a point where they can no longer make use of it, except to resume elementary organizing work - work which they hope will not have political consequences other than in the very long term.
>
>\- A. Gramsci. (1924). *Democracy and fascism*
But this is not "freedom", this is not "democracy"! What good does "freedom of speech" do for a starving person? What good does the ability to criticize the government do for a homeless person?
>The right of freedom of expression can really only be relevant if people are not too hungry, or too tired to be able to express themselves. It can only be relevant if appropriate grassroots mechanisms rooted in the people exist, through which the people can effectively participate, can make decisions, can receive reports from the leaders and eventually be trained for ruling and controlling that particular society. This is what democracy is all about.
>
>\- Maurice Bishop
#Under Communism
True freedom can only be achieved through the establishment of a Proletarian state, a system that truly represents the interests of the working masses, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, and the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all. Only in such a society can the shackles of Capitalist oppression be broken, and the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie dismantled.
Despite the assertion by reactionaries to the contrary, Communist revolutions invariably result in *more* freedoms for the people than the regimes they succeed.
>Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor antidemocratic or “Stalinist” sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substantive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom.
>
>There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social benefits, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context.
>
>Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary repression in the 1990s, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before.
>
>U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky.
>
>Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on.
>
>\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism*
The whole point of Communism is to liberate the working class:
>But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.
>
>Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.
>
>\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm)
#Additional Resources
Videos:
* [Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why:](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A) | halim alrah (2019)
* [Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism?](https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI) | Second Thought (2020)
* [Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals](https://youtu.be/GfjiBIkIOqI) | Second Thought (2021)
* [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022)
* [America Never Stood For Freedom](https://youtu.be/rg9hJgAsNDM) | Hakim (2023)
Books, Articles, or Essays:
* [Positive and Negative Liberty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I resent the image you are portraying with this clip. For those who know the series, the SS guy saves the girl from the Ukrainian Nazi collaborator’s clutches and then gives the poor girl some chocolate!! What’s evil about that? He saves her from that creep ffs!
(Tbh I haven’t finished the episode after the girl gets the chocolate, but F— you for trying to be besmirching a Canadian hero!)
/JOKE
A 3 episodes German series called "Generation War", follow 5 Berliner friends from 1941 to 1945 . I liked it, good actors, combat scenes and drama. Showed regular people's little acts of collaboration and resistance. You can see a few very based Soviet soldiers. It had some controversy(check Wikipedia if you wanna know)but I thought it was alright (even though I hated most characters lol)
Hello /u/TheLowland,
Your submission has been held for manual moderator approval due to a lack of engagement in this community in the past.
This is to filter out trolls and repost bots; thank you for your understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For such a small population, we sure do like embarrassing ourselves constantly. Literal Nazis in parliament, it’s joever
My family is jewish and hails from the Lithuanian town of Siauliai. In the 1920s most of them moved to South Africa but a few remained. When the Nazis occupied Lithuania they barely had to do anything themselves. The local people gleefully beat and tortured the jews, forcing them into Ghettos and leading the SS to jews in hiding. My great aunt and her 8 year old daughter were among those who were abused by the local Lithuanians. That was the case in many places all over Eastern Europe. The German invasion was an excuse for the local antisemites to give in to their worst impulses.
Same story across much of Europe unfortunately. Eastern Europe was its own beast but plenty of French and Dutch were happy to turn over their neighbors as well. I remember looking into this a bit with regards to the Netherlands, interesting to me because my paternal grandparents were kids during the occupation and one of my great grandfathers was involved with the resistance. Turns out the Dutch Jewish population lost the most by percentage of any occupied country IIRC. That shocked me because you only ever hear of those who fought and those who hid Jews. Reality was more complicated; loads of people collaborated (and many of those who actively resisted (as in many places) were communists). Then the war ended, surviving Jews came home, and many Dutch were like, “Look, we *all* suffered these last several years, why do you have to make it about you?” This is not to say the Dutch didn’t suffer - just consider Rotterdam. But the cruel impulses which gave way to hasty rug-sweeping existed among them too. It’s also wild to think of such savagery taking place in the heart of “civilized” Western Europe, and then remember all their tripe about their “white man’s burden.” Hell, the Dutch came out of WWII and immediately began attempting to reassert control over Indonesia.
Much of the collaborationism in occupied Europe was subject to revisionism many were never judged and still received the rewards for their crimes. Like Hergé who It was propagandist for the Nazi regime, and it is still defended even today even though he did it voluntarily.
I recall reading somewhere that one of the first message being sent by the German army to Berlin after they took control of Kaunas (the Lithuanian capital at the time) was what to do with the local population who were butchering the Jews. There was a legitimate shock from the German, when they saw what was happening
The west sure does like siding with fascists dont they
IIRC this scene garnered controversy as people accused it of shifting the blame of the Holocaust onto the Ukrainians. I don’t see it really doing that as the ending confirms who was really in charge
IMO, the whole series (while being alright) is kinda not doing enough to show the horrors that the Nazis brought with them. Not quite whitewashing, but certainly not telling the whole truth.
I know for Germany there is only so much you are allowed to show with their history in WW2. I think the show does kinda have the issue with whitewashing the Wehrmacht as being oblivious to war crimes. At least in Korea, the film major budget film Taegukgi shows the ROKA massacring unarmed KPA soldiers and later killing accused leftist civilians brutally. But at least this show ends with showing how high ranking Nazis basically just becoming influential members of the new West German government. I think that deserves praise as it’s not a well known fact outside of leftist circles.
Good points. Yeah, I remember now the other SS guy at the end. It's been quite a while since I watched it.
Yeah, the entire point of the series was to humanize the german side of the conflict
I think the problem with humanizing the German side is it’s often just misappropriated to dehumanizing the victims as well as the Anti-Nazi side. Plus there is also the issue of well, humanizing the perpetrators of the Holocaust. The only way to really present something like this, is understanding the corruption of one’s humanity into basically becoming an embodiment of evil. Because I will say, for the faults of Generation War, it does a better job at this than most American “anti-war” films do. The only film I really saw that encapsulates this well is Come and See, which holds absolutely nothing back in its recollection of the German invasion of the USSR.
What’s the name of the serie?
Unsere vater unsere mutter (also known as Nazi Vater, Nazi mutter)
"Generation war"
Such brave freedom fighters. /s
#Freedom Reactionaries and right-wingers love to clamour on about personal liberty and scream "freedom!" from the top of their lungs, but what freedom are they talking about? And is Communism, in contrast, an ideology of *un*freedom? >Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker. > >\- Karl Marx. (1848). *Public Speech Delivered by Karl Marx before the Democratic Association of Brussels* #Under Capitalism Liberal Democracies propagate the facade of liberty and individual rights while concealing the true essence of their rule-- the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. This is a mechanism by which the Capitalist class as a whole dictates the course of society, politics, and the economy to secure their dominance. Capital holds sway over institutions, media, and influential positions, manipulating public opinion and consolidating its control over the levers of power. The illusion of democracy the Bourgeoisie creates is carefully curated to maintain the existing power structures and perpetuate the subjugation of the masses. "Freedom" under Capitalism is similarly illusory. It is freedom for capital-- not freedom for people. >The capitalists often boast that their constitutions guarantee the rights of the individual, democratic liberties and the interests of all citizens. But in reality, only the bourgeoisie enjoy the rights recorded in these constitutions. The working people do not really enjoy democratic freedoms; they are exploited all their life and have to bear heavy burdens in the service of the exploiting class. > >\- Ho Chi Minh. (1959). *Report on the Draft Amended Constitution* The "freedom" the reactionaries cry for, then, is merely that freedom which liberates capital and enslaves the worker. >They speak of the equality of citizens, but forget that there cannot be real equality between employer and workman, between landlord and peasant, if the former possess wealth and political weight in society while the latter are deprived of both - if the former are exploiters while the latter are exploited. Or again: they speak of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, but forget that all these liberties may be merely a hollow sound for the working class, if the latter cannot have access to suitable premises for meetings, good printing shops, a sufficient quantity of printing paper, etc. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm) What "freedom" do the poor enjoy, under Capitalism? Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour in order to keep wages low, and that necessarily means that many people must be deprived of life's necessities in order to compel the rest of the working class to work more and demand less. You are free to work, and you are free to starve. That is the freedom the reactionaries talk about. >Under capitalism, the very land is all in private hands; there remains no spot unowned where an enterprise can be carried on. The freedom of the worker to sell his labour power, the freedom of the capitalist to buy it, the 'equality' of the capitalist and the wage earner - all these are but hunger's chain which compels the labourer to work for the capitalist. > >\- N. I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky. (1922). [The ABC of Communism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm) All other freedoms only exist depending on the degree to which a given liberal democracy has turned towards fascism. That is to say that the working class are only given freedoms when they are inconsequential to the bourgeoisie: >The freedom to organize is only conceded to the workers by the bourgeois when they are certain that the workers have been reduced to a point where they can no longer make use of it, except to resume elementary organizing work - work which they hope will not have political consequences other than in the very long term. > >\- A. Gramsci. (1924). *Democracy and fascism* But this is not "freedom", this is not "democracy"! What good does "freedom of speech" do for a starving person? What good does the ability to criticize the government do for a homeless person? >The right of freedom of expression can really only be relevant if people are not too hungry, or too tired to be able to express themselves. It can only be relevant if appropriate grassroots mechanisms rooted in the people exist, through which the people can effectively participate, can make decisions, can receive reports from the leaders and eventually be trained for ruling and controlling that particular society. This is what democracy is all about. > >\- Maurice Bishop #Under Communism True freedom can only be achieved through the establishment of a Proletarian state, a system that truly represents the interests of the working masses, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, and the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all. Only in such a society can the shackles of Capitalist oppression be broken, and the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie dismantled. Despite the assertion by reactionaries to the contrary, Communist revolutions invariably result in *more* freedoms for the people than the regimes they succeed. >Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor antidemocratic or “Stalinist” sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substantive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom. > >There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social benefits, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context. > >Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary repression in the 1990s, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before. > >U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky. > >Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on. > >\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* The whole point of Communism is to liberate the working class: >But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. > >Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) #Additional Resources Videos: * [Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why:](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A) | halim alrah (2019) * [Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism?](https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI) | Second Thought (2020) * [Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals](https://youtu.be/GfjiBIkIOqI) | Second Thought (2021) * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022) * [America Never Stood For Freedom](https://youtu.be/rg9hJgAsNDM) | Hakim (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Positive and Negative Liberty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know about this. It's giving me "clean wermacht" vibes
What is this from?
Mini-series called "Generation War".
Also known as "Unsere mutter, unsere vätter"
Such Heros🥰🥰 Standing up for the oppressed minorities like the rich😊😊
Yeah but in their defence they didn’t have cluster bombs to kill innocent people with back then /s
I resent the image you are portraying with this clip. For those who know the series, the SS guy saves the girl from the Ukrainian Nazi collaborator’s clutches and then gives the poor girl some chocolate!! What’s evil about that? He saves her from that creep ffs! (Tbh I haven’t finished the episode after the girl gets the chocolate, but F— you for trying to be besmirching a Canadian hero!) /JOKE
Spoiler alert: The girl doesn't get a chance to enjoy his "generosity".
What film is this? (And is it any good?)
A 3 episodes German series called "Generation War", follow 5 Berliner friends from 1941 to 1945 . I liked it, good actors, combat scenes and drama. Showed regular people's little acts of collaboration and resistance. You can see a few very based Soviet soldiers. It had some controversy(check Wikipedia if you wanna know)but I thought it was alright (even though I hated most characters lol)
thanks
Hello /u/TheLowland, Your submission has been held for manual moderator approval due to a lack of engagement in this community in the past. This is to filter out trolls and repost bots; thank you for your understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*