Nepal’s Gen Z Movement
By Rajendra Rana
Introduction
There are certain moments in a country’s history that change not only the present but also the direction of its future. September 2025 became one such period for Nepal. Within a few days, large numbers of young people took to the streets, clashes between security forces and protesters turned violent, people lost their lives, government and private properties were damaged, the government lifted its social media restrictions, and then-Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned. An interim government was subsequently formed, and Nepal entered another phase of political transition.
The movement later became widely known as the Gen Z Movement. Young people from Generation Z became its most visible face. However, it would be incomplete to understand the movement simply as a protest by young people who wanted access to social media. Behind the movement were wider concerns about corruption, political accountability, unemployment, inequality of opportunity, political privilege, and freedom of expression. The government’s restriction on social media acted as the immediate trigger that brought many of these frustrations onto the streets.
This article attempts to understand what happened in simple and factual language. Its purpose is not to promote one political side or condemn another. It is an effort to explain what happened, why it happened, how the situation became violent, what impact it had on Nepal, what questions were raised about both the state and protesters, and what later investigations revealed.
1. Nepal Before the Movement
The Gen Z Movement did not emerge from nothing. For many years, Nepal had been experiencing political instability, allegations of corruption, limited employment opportunities, and increasing migration of young people abroad.
Many young Nepalis have gone overseas for education and employment. The feeling that people cannot find opportunities according to their qualifications inside the country has existed for a long time. There has also been growing frustration that political leadership changes frequently, while the expected improvements in ordinary people’s lives do not come at the same pace.
Against this background, social media became much more than a source of entertainment for young people. It became a place where they could follow news, discuss politics, question government decisions, and share their experiences.
Content showing the lifestyles of children of politically powerful families also became widely discussed online. The debate around so-called “nepo kids” reflected wider questions about privilege, access, and the differences between the lives of ordinary young people and those born into powerful families.
However, simply being a member of a political family does not prove that a person is corrupt or involved in wrongdoing. Such accusations must be established through evidence and legal procedures. Therefore, not every allegation circulated on social media should automatically be treated as fact.
At the same time, citizens have the democratic right to question political privilege, public spending, and the lifestyles of people connected to power. These questions helped create the environment in which the Gen Z Movement grew.
2. Why Did Social Media Become So Important?
For the younger generation, social media had become a major part of everyday life.
Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp, and other platforms were being used for news, communication, entertainment, business, education, and social interaction. They were also important for Nepalis living abroad who wanted to remain connected with their families and communities back home.
Therefore, when the government restricted access to several major social media platforms, the impact went far beyond ordinary internet use.
The government argued that the platforms needed to comply with registration and other regulatory requirements in Nepal. It also said that regulation was necessary to address issues such as misuse of social media and harmful content.
However, many citizens and young people viewed the decision as an attack on freedom of expression.
The disagreement quickly moved from the digital world to the streets.
3. September 4: The Social Media Ban
On September 4, 2025, Nepal restricted access to several major social media platforms.
The decision quickly increased frustration among young people.
Many young citizens who were already questioning corruption and political leadership began directly challenging the government.
Even after the restrictions were imposed, young people continued communicating through alternative platforms and technological tools. Reports indicated that some protesters used services such as TikTok, Viber, and VPNs to communicate and organize.
This created an important lesson for the government:
A digital generation cannot necessarily be silenced simply by restricting digital platforms.
4. The Call for Protest
Young people began preparing demonstrations against the social media restrictions.
But the demands soon expanded beyond the issue of social media.
Questions about corruption, political accountability, government transparency, and the country’s political direction became part of the wider protest.
Youth groups and activists, including Hami Nepal, played a role in mobilizing people through digital platforms.
One of the notable characteristics of the movement was that it was not controlled by a single traditional political party.
This gave the movement a decentralized character.
However, decentralized movements also face challenges. When leadership is not clearly defined, it becomes difficult to determine who is responsible for decisions and actions. It also becomes harder to maintain a clear boundary between peaceful protest and violent activity.
5. September 8: The Streets Begin to Fill
On September 8, large numbers of young people gathered in the streets of Kathmandu.
Many of the protesters were students and young citizens. Some were seen wearing school uniforms.
They raised their voices against corruption and demanded an end to the social media restrictions. They also demanded accountability from the political leadership.
The demonstrations were dominated by young participants, and similar protests were reported in other parts of Nepal.
At first, the central message of the protest was opposition and demands for change.
But the situation soon began to move beyond peaceful protest.
6. The Crowd Moves Toward Parliament
Protesters moved toward the federal Parliament building.
Security forces attempted to control the crowd.
As the situation became increasingly tense, reports indicated the use of tear gas, water cannons, and other crowd-control measures. Eventually, firearms were used and people were killed.
This moment marked the beginning of the most painful chapter of the Gen Z Movement.
7. Deaths on the First Day
By the night of September 8, initial official and media reports said that at least 19 people had died. More than one hundred people were reported injured.
The deaths dramatically changed the nature of the movement.
Young people who had initially taken to the streets to oppose the social media restrictions were now demanding answers about the use of force and the deaths of protesters.
Families lost loved ones.
Injured people were taken to hospitals.
Anger spread across the country.
Human rights organizations began demanding an independent investigation and accountability for those responsible.
8. Questions About the Use of Force
The use of force by security personnel on September 8 remains one of the most important issues surrounding the movement.
Human Rights Watch later investigated the events and concluded that police had fired live ammunition at protesters in Kathmandu over a period of several hours, with 17 deaths attributed to police gunfire.
At the same time, the actions of protesters also need to be examined separately.
Reports indicated that crowds moved toward security areas and that some protesters were involved in stone-throwing and other violent activities.
Therefore, a fair investigation needs to answer two separate questions:
What did the protesters do?
And:
How much force did the state use in response?
Both questions must be answered through evidence.
9. The Social Media Ban Was Lifted
As the protests intensified, the government lifted the restrictions on social media platforms.
However, the anger among young people did not disappear.
This made one thing clear:
The central issue was no longer only access to social media.
Questions about corruption, political leadership, accountability, and the conduct of the state had become central to the movement.
The social media ban was the immediate trigger.
The wider causes were frustrations that had already existed in society.
10. September 9: Anger Intensifies
The situation became even more serious on September 9.
People who were angry about the deaths and violence of the previous day returned to the streets.
A curfew had been imposed, but protests and violence continued in several places.
Reports emerged of government offices, political leaders’ residences, police facilities, businesses, and other buildings being attacked or set on fire. Structures associated with Parliament, the Supreme Court, and Singha Durbar were also damaged.
At this stage, the peaceful character of the movement was seriously weakened.
This is why September 9 remains one of the most complicated days in the history of the Gen Z Movement.
11. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli Resigns
On September 9, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned.
His resignation became a direct political consequence of the crisis created by the protests and the violence that followed.
The resignation represented a major political achievement for protesters who had demanded accountability and change.
But the resignation of a prime minister did not immediately restore peace or stability.
A government falling and a country returning to normal conditions are two different things.
12. The Second Phase of Violence
The violence on September 9 caused extensive damage.
Government buildings were affected, but private property, businesses, political offices, and other structures were also attacked.
Human Rights Watch later reported that at least 76 people died during the violence over the two days and that extensive damage was caused to public and private property.
This raises an important question:
Why did a movement against the government result in the destruction of property belonging to ordinary citizens as well?
The answer requires us to distinguish between peaceful demonstrations and the violence that followed.
Many people may have participated peacefully.
At the same time, some groups may have engaged in violent activities.
Therefore, it would be inaccurate to describe the entire Gen Z generation as responsible for violence.
13. The Difference Between the Movement and the Violence
This distinction is extremely important.
The main public demands of the Gen Z Movement included opposition to the social media ban, demands for accountability, and concerns about corruption and political governance.
However, violence, arson, looting, and destruction that occurred during the protests cannot automatically be attributed to every participant.
At the same time, the occurrence of violence does not eliminate the right to peaceful protest.
In a democratic society, both principles matter.
Peaceful protest is a democratic right.
Violence can constitute a crime.
The difference between the two must be determined through law and evidence.
14. The Human Cost of the Movement
The first reports mentioned 19 deaths.
As investigations into the events of September 8 and 9 continued, the overall death toll increased.
By 2026, Human Rights Watch reported that at least 76 people had died during the violence over the two days.
The victims included protesters, security personnel, and other people affected by the violence.
This is why a responsible account of the movement must distinguish between different time periods and sources.
The figure of 19 deaths reported on the first day should not be confused with the later figure covering the broader events of both days.
15. The Suffering of the Injured
Death was not the only human cost of the movement.
Thousands of people were injured.
A Reuters report published in March 2026, referring to the investigation into the events, reported 76 deaths and 2,522 injuries during the two days.
For injured people, the movement did not end when the streets became quiet.
Some required prolonged medical treatment.
Some lost their ability to work normally.
Some families faced financial difficulties.
Therefore, the impact of the movement must be measured not only by the number of people who died but also by the lives of those who were injured and the families affected.
16. The Road Toward an Interim Government
Following Oli’s resignation, Nepal entered a period of political uncertainty.
Former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was subsequently appointed interim prime minister.
She assumed office on September 12.
Parliament was dissolved, and preparations for a new election began.
This became one of the most significant political consequences of the Gen Z Movement.
For the first time, a former female chief justice became Nepal’s interim prime minister.
17. Young Activists Enter a New Political Role
After the protests, young activists began playing a role beyond street demonstrations.
Reuters reported that young activists associated with Hami Nepal became involved in discussions over the formation and leadership of the interim government. They supported former Chief Justice Sushila Karki for interim leadership.
This represented a major shift.
The young people who had previously been questioning the government were now involved in discussions about how the government itself should be run.
But this created another challenge.
Opposition is easier than governance.
A government must prepare budgets.
It must implement laws.
It must manage the economy.
It must provide education, healthcare, security, and infrastructure.
Therefore, the political energy created by a movement must eventually be transformed into institutional capacity.
18. Damage to Government Structures
The movement also caused significant physical damage.
Reports indicated damage to Singha Durbar, the Prime Minister’s Office, Parliament, the Supreme Court, the President’s residence, and other government structures.
Some private structures connected to political figures were also affected.
In December 2025, the government estimated that the protests had caused more than US$586 million in economic damage.
The same government assessment estimated that more than US$252 million would be required to rebuild damaged structures.
These figures were government estimates and should therefore be understood as official estimates rather than independently verified final figures.
19. How Much Can a Political Movement Affect an Economy?
When people discuss political protests, they often focus on governments, leaders, elections, and political change.
But economic consequences can also be significant.
Businesses may close.
Transportation can be disrupted.
Tourism may be affected.
Government services can be interrupted.
When public buildings are destroyed, money must be spent to rebuild them.
That money could otherwise have been used for development, education, healthcare, or other public needs.
Therefore, when a movement demands political change, it must also consider an important question:
How will the country be rebuilt after the change?
20. Why Was the Karki Commission Formed?
The interim government established an investigation commission to examine the deaths and violence during the movement.
The commission was led by former Special Court Judge Gauri Bahadur Karki.
Its responsibility was to investigate the violent events of September 8 and 9.
The commission was not only expected to examine the actions of protesters.
It also examined the use of force by security personnel, government decision-making, the role of political leadership, and the state’s response to the violence.
21. The Commission’s Findings and Questions About Oli
In March 2026, reports about the commission’s findings indicated that it had recommended investigation and possible prosecution over alleged criminal negligence involving former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, and former police chief Chandra Kuber Khapung.
The commission raised questions about whether senior state leadership had failed to take adequate steps to prevent the violence and whether security forces were properly controlled.
However, an important legal distinction must be made.
A recommendation for prosecution is not the same as a court conviction.
An allegation must go through investigation, prosecution, judicial proceedings, and a court decision before guilt can be legally established.
Therefore, it would not be accurate to describe anyone as legally guilty before a final court decision.
22. Oli’s Response
Oli rejected the commission’s conclusions.
According to Reuters, he described the report as unacceptable, biased, and damaging to his reputation.
This highlights another important principle.
In major political events, one report should not automatically be treated as the final and unquestionable truth.
The findings of an investigation, the response of the accused, the testimony of victims, and the final decision of a court are separate matters.
Each should be understood independently.
23. The Arrest of Oli
On March 28, 2026, former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak were arrested for investigation into the deaths and violence associated with the Gen Z protests.
This became one of the biggest political consequences of the movement within the following year.
Oli’s supporters described the arrests as political retaliation.
The government presented them as part of a legal investigation and accountability process.
In this way, the question of accountability raised by protesters moved from the streets into the police and judicial system.
24. Arrest Is Not the Same as Conviction
This legal distinction must be understood clearly.
Being arrested does not mean that a person has been found guilty by a court.
A person may be arrested as part of an investigation.
If investigators find sufficient evidence, formal charges may follow.
A court then examines the evidence and makes a decision.
The same legal principle applies to former government leaders and to protesters.
Justice requires that everyone be treated according to the law.
25. Human Rights Watch Findings
Human Rights Watch conducted its own investigation into the use of force on September 8.
Its findings stated that police fired live ammunition at protesters in Kathmandu and attributed 17 deaths to police gunfire.
The organization called for independent investigation and accountability for those responsible.
In 2026, Human Rights Watch also reported that at least 76 people had died during the violence of September 8 and 9 and raised serious concerns about unlawful use of force.
These findings added international attention to the events in Nepal.
26. The Violence of September 9 Cannot Be Ignored
One part of the story concerns police use of force.
Another concerns violence committed by protesters or other groups.
During the second day, government buildings, police facilities, businesses, political offices, and other properties were attacked or burned.
This caused enormous damage.
Therefore, it would be incomplete to describe the entire Gen Z Movement only as a story of police violence.
Likewise, it would also be incomplete to describe the movement only as a story of protesters committing violence.
Both sides of the events must be examined according to time, location, evidence, and responsibility.
27. What Were the Real Demands of the Movement?
It is difficult to say that every person who participated in the movement had exactly the same demands.
However, reports show several common themes.
Opposition to the social media ban.
Demands for accountability.
Concerns about corruption.
Calls for greater government transparency.
Concerns about opportunities for young people.
Questions about political privilege.
These issues helped transform the movement from a digital protest into a broader political uprising.
28. How Did Social Media Change the Movement?
In earlier political movements, radio, television, newspapers, and public meetings played major roles in spreading information.
Now a mobile phone is enough.
A video can reach thousands of people within minutes.
Images from a protest can spread across the country almost instantly.
A statement from one person can become a national political debate within hours.
But this power also brings risks.
False information can spread quickly.
Old videos can be presented as new events.
Unverified accusations can be treated as facts.
This means the Gen Z Movement also demonstrated the importance of digital literacy.
Not everything seen on the internet is automatically true.
29. Political Awareness Among Young People
One of the most important features of the Gen Z Movement was the political participation of young people.
For years, there had been an assumption that many young people were disconnected from politics.
The movement challenged that assumption.
Young people showed that they care about the direction of their country.
They can organize.
They can question authority.
They can mobilize large numbers of people.
They can bring national attention to issues that political leaders may prefer to ignore.
But another challenge now lies ahead.
How can political awareness be transformed into political responsibility?
That question is likely to matter for Nepal’s future.
30. From the Streets to Institutions
It is possible to demand change in the streets.
But governing a country requires institutions.
There must be a functioning Parliament.
There must be an independent judiciary.
There must be a free press.
There must be accountable public administration.
There must be professional security institutions.
There must be credible elections.
Therefore, the long-term success of the Gen Z Movement cannot be measured simply by the number of people who came to the streets.
Its deeper success will depend on what institutional changes it produces.
31. The Message to the Older Political Generation
The movement delivered a clear message to Nepal’s established political leadership.
Young people cannot simply be ignored.
Dissatisfaction expressed on social media cannot be dismissed as meaningless online noise.
Political leaders must communicate with citizens.
Allegations of corruption must be investigated fairly.
Public officials must be able to explain their decisions and public spending.
The state must treat criticism not as an enemy attack but as part of democratic life.
32. The Message to the New Generation
The movement also delivered a lesson to young people themselves.
Anger can be the beginning of change.
But anger alone is not a solution.
It is possible to bring down a government.
Building a better government is much harder.
It is possible to protest against corruption.
Building transparent institutions can take years.
It is easy to criticize political leaders.
Responsible leadership requires knowledge, discipline, patience, and accountability.
Therefore, the challenge before Gen Z is now even greater.
33. What Changed in Nepal After the Movement?
The immediate political consequences were significant.
The social media restrictions were lifted.
Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned.
An interim government was formed.
The country moved toward a new electoral process.
The political balance of power also changed considerably.
But these political changes came alongside significant human and economic costs.
Therefore, both the achievements and the damage must be included when discussing the history of the movement.
34. The Meaning of the Economic Loss
The government estimated that the protests caused more than US$586 million in economic damage and that more than US$252 million could be needed for reconstruction.
For a country with a relatively small economy, such losses are significant.
When a building is destroyed, it must be rebuilt.
When a government office is damaged, public services can be disrupted.
When a business suffers major losses, workers and families can also be affected.
Therefore, political change must always be accompanied by responsibility for rebuilding the country.
35. Justice for the Victims
One of the most serious questions raised by the Gen Z Movement concerns justice.
Families who lost relatives want to know the truth.
How did their loved ones die?
What decisions led to the deaths?
Who gave orders?
Who used force?
Who committed violence?
Who failed to stop it?
These questions cannot be answered through political speeches.
They require evidence.
Justice does not mean revenge.
Justice means finding the truth, holding responsible people accountable when evidence proves wrongdoing, and protecting innocent people from false accusations.
36. Why Is an Independent Investigation Necessary?
If an investigation is politically influenced, public trust declines.
If only the actions of protesters are investigated, questions about state force may remain unanswered.
If only police actions are investigated, questions about arson and violence by protesters may also remain unanswered.
A credible investigation must examine all relevant sides.
This is why the findings of the Karki Commission should be understood alongside other human rights investigations and independent assessments.
37. Different Investigations, Different Findings
Not every investigation into the Gen Z Movement has reached exactly the same conclusions.
The Karki Commission raised serious questions about the responsibility of senior political and security leadership.
At the same time, later analysis also raised questions about the commission’s scope and whether it sufficiently addressed the violence of the second day.
This demonstrates why no single report should automatically be treated as the complete and final answer to every question surrounding the movement.
The historical record should remain open to evidence, legal review, and further investigation.
38. The Movement from a Human Rights Perspective
The basic principles of human rights are simple.
Every person has the right to life.
People have the right to peaceful protest.
The state has a responsibility to protect citizens’ rights.
Citizens also have a responsibility to respect the lives and property of others.
The Gen Z Movement raised difficult questions about how these principles should work in real situations.
Security forces must use necessary and proportionate measures when controlling crowds.
Protesters must also avoid violence.
Both responsibilities matter.
39. The Movement and Democracy
Sometimes protests against a government are mistakenly described as attacks on democracy.
But the right to criticize a government is itself part of democracy.
Citizens have the right to challenge government decisions.
However, political change must also take place within constitutional and legal processes.
The Gen Z Movement brought the relationship between democratic rights and state responsibility into intense public debate.
40. Lessons for Future Movements
Future movements can learn many lessons from the Gen Z experience.
First, demands should be clear.
Second, the boundary between peaceful protest and violence should be clearly understood.
Third, misinformation must be actively challenged.
Fourth, leadership and responsibility should be clearly defined.
Fifth, violence can seriously weaken the moral authority of a movement.
Sixth, movements should think about what happens after the protest is successful.
A movement needs not only a plan for demanding change but also a vision for what comes next.
41. Lessons for the Government
The government also has important lessons to learn.
Citizens’ digital rights cannot be treated lightly.
If social media platforms need regulation, the process must be transparent and lawful.
The government must communicate with citizens.
Young people’s concerns should be heard before frustration reaches the streets.
Security forces must receive clear legal instructions.
Crowd control must respect human rights.
A government that listens early may prevent a much larger crisis later.
42. Lessons for Political Parties
Political parties also face important questions.
Young people cannot be treated merely as crowds to be brought out during election campaigns.
They should be included in decision-making.
The concerns of younger generations should not simply be dismissed as attacks on older political leaders.
Political parties need greater internal transparency.
They also need to create genuine opportunities for younger people to enter leadership.
43. The Role of Media and Citizen Journalism
The Gen Z Movement demonstrated the power of social media and citizen journalism.
People recorded events on their phones.
Videos spread rapidly.
Citizens became direct witnesses to events.
But this also increased the responsibility of everyone sharing information.
Seeing a video does not necessarily provide the full context.
The number of deaths can change as information is verified.
A video may be old.
An accusation against a person or organization may not have been proven.
Therefore, journalists and ordinary social media users both have a responsibility to verify information before presenting it as fact.
44. What Will History Remember?
History may remember the Gen Z Movement from many different perspectives.
Some will remember it as a protest against corruption.
Some will remember it as the uprising of a digital generation.
Some will remember it as opposition to the social media restrictions.
Some will remember it as the beginning of major political change.
Others will remember the deaths, destruction, and fear.
But the real history consists of all these elements together.
45. The Voice of a Generation
The Gen Z Movement made one thing clear:
Nepal’s young people are not silent.
They have questions.
They care about the future of their country.
They want to challenge corruption.
They want employment and opportunity.
They want their voices to be heard.
But now the greater challenge is to transform that voice into responsible political participation and effective public policy.
46. The Real Meaning of Change
Changing a government is only one part of change.
Real change occurs when people’s everyday lives improve.
When young people can find meaningful employment in Nepal.
When the quality of education improves.
When healthcare becomes accessible.
When citizens do not have to pay bribes to receive public services.
When justice does not take decades.
When qualified people can receive opportunities without political connections.
Only then can the demands raised in the streets be said to have achieved their deeper purpose.
47. The Biggest Question Left by the Gen Z Movement
The movement has left Nepal with a major question:
“Will we repeat the political culture of the past, or will we build a new one?”
If only the leaders change while political culture remains the same, history may repeat itself.
If governments change but institutions remain weak, the same problems may return.
If young people’s anger cannot be transformed into policy and institutions, the energy of the movement may eventually disappear.
But if the voice of the younger generation can be connected with strong democratic institutions, the movement could become a positive turning point in Nepal’s political history.
48. Final Conclusion
Nepal’s Gen Z Movement was not simply a two-day street protest.
Its roots were connected to social and political frustrations that had been growing for years.
The social media ban brought those frustrations into the streets.
On September 8, large demonstrations took place.
People were killed following the use of force by security personnel.
Anger increased.
On September 9, violence spread to different parts of the country.
Government and private properties were severely damaged.
Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned.
An interim government led by former Chief Justice Sushila Karki was subsequently formed.
An investigation commission was established.
Later, the commission raised serious questions about the responsibility of senior political and security officials.
In 2026, former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak were arrested as part of investigations related to the deaths and violence surrounding the protests. However, arrest does not mean guilt, and final responsibility must be determined through due legal process.
Looking back at the Gen Z Movement today, we should not focus only on victory or defeat.
We should look for lessons.
A lesson about listening to young people.
A lesson about holding governments accountable.
A lesson about the importance of freedom of expression.
A lesson about the destructive consequences of violence.
A lesson about oversight of state power.
And most importantly:
A lesson that democracy is more than elections.
Democracy means having the right to ask questions.
It means having the right to demand answers.
It means being able to challenge a government when it makes mistakes.
It means being able to seek justice.
And it means that those who hold power must remain accountable to citizens.
But citizens also have responsibilities in protecting democracy.
A protest should not become an excuse for violence.
False information should not be deliberately spread.
Unverified accusations should not automatically be treated as truth.
The lives and property of other citizens must be respected.
The lesson of the Gen Z Movement therefore works in two directions.
The government must learn to listen to its citizens.
Citizens must learn to connect change with responsibility.
September 2025 gave Nepal a major political shock.
Many people lost their lives in that shock.
Many families were affected.
The country suffered significant economic damage.
But the events also brought the voice of an entire generation to the center of national politics.
Now Nepal must write the next page of its history.
Will that page once again be filled with corruption, instability, and mistrust?
Or will it begin a new chapter of transparency, opportunity, accountability, and good governance—the values demanded by the younger generation?
The answer does not belong to one leader.
It does not belong to one political party.
It belongs to Nepal’s democratic society, its institutions, and the collective actions of its new generation.
That is why the final question of the Gen Z Movement remains:
“How can the voice that rose from the streets now be transformed into a force for building the nation?”
The answer to that question will ultimately determine the true historical significance of Nepal’s Gen Z Movement.
Posts
0 Comments