#objectively refusing to associate with any of it. because they Know. that whatever issue lies at the heart of it is never gonna get resolve | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

plctwists · 2 years ago

Text

HAN SOHEE 23 FEMALE SHE/HER — ; where do you get your inspiration, KIM MINA ? you’re so INTUITIVE , i can’t help but think of DYING ROSES , DRINKING EXPENSIVE WINE FROM THE BOTTLE AT DAWN , A MESS OF CIGARETTE BUTTS , WET BRUSHES AND CRUMBLED PIECES OF PAPER when i hear your name . your friends tell me you can be FLIGHTY sometimes . i guess it’s understandable given the circumstances. besides , i can’t even imagine how stressful PAINTING classes must be — not to mention you’re also in THE RED AND GREEN CLUB ! you’re a NEWCOMER , right ? yeah, i thought so . either way , welcome to mugunghwa !

hi all! i’m max, she/her, 21+ and super excited to be here! ‪♡‬ my new years resolution is to be active for the next 3 months so i can find out who k*lled jisoo :D anyways, this is my little manic pixie dream girl, flighty escapist painter miss kim mina! she’s still very much a wip and it’s my first time writing a character like her, so please do excuse any messiness and characterization issues thank u

(also do like this post if you would like to plot!!)

and more info about her can be found in her about page here ‪♡‬

basics

scorpio sun, cancer moon, scorpio rising

born 12 november 1999 in seoul

lived in berlin for seven years when she was eight

currently a second year painting major, specializes in oil painting & dabbles in watercolor. was previously at seoul national university

personality n vibes

infp

positive traits: caring, intuitive, creative, self-aware

negative traits: self-centered, escapist, dishonest, flighty

neutral traits: imaginative, secretive

character inspirations: the white lotus s2’s daphne, nevertheless’ jae eon, looking for alaska’s alaska young, if we were villains’ meredith, industry’s yasmin

archetypes the hedonist, the hopeless romantic

associated aesthetics: dying roses, messy rooms and messier lives, running away when things get hard, cigarettes butts and wet brushes carelessly strewn into an empty bottle of expensive wine, sharing knowing smiles in crowded rooms, vintage chanel bags stained with paint

trivia

best way to describe her: sweet but incredibly unreliable. soft-spoken with an air of mystery around her. the type to give you a vague, non-descript answer.

distances herself from reality because a. she doesn’t want to confront her trauma and b. it’s more fun romanticizing and dramatizing everything anyways

the kind to pretend that bad things don’t happen (she lives by the motto: “do whatever you have to do to not feel like a victim of life.”)

morally gray compass. will always find excuses for herself whenever she does something objectively wrong.

a manic pixie dream girl because she wants to be. deep down she knows that she’s fucked up and everything’s fucked up but would rather avoid a crushing reality than face it bc she has the opportunity to choose to ignore it. she may be self-centered and an escapist, but she’s not that stupid and not that unaware. she’s just wilfully ignorant rly

desperate for love, given her lack of love during her childhood, sort of a pushover but see below: will hurt u behind your back

she would never hurt someone, she says. but she is perfectly fine with doing it behind her backs and finding some justification on why it wasn’t that wrong anyways (shes a gaslighting queen)

she’s a fucking liar - misremembers events (wanting to dramatize them? just lives in a world of her own? no one fucking knows), saying whatever it takes to incite the reaction she wants, telling one thing to one person and another to someone else, always refusing to admit that she has lied

if you ask if she loved jisoo... she wouldn’t really have an answer. but she did love the idea of jisoo - the knight in shining armor, the boy who swept her off her feet away from shitty seoul

after jisoo’s death, nothing has really changed about mina which has led to a lot of talk about her “suspicious behaviour” but in reality, mina is detaching from the situation (as with what she did with her sister)

she’s numb about it, hasn’t really allowed herself to process - instead, throws herself into painting, buying expensive shit, dying her hair, speaking about him in present tense

background (tw death)

summarising to things u need to know: parents dgaf about her, older sister died when she was six and she started building her own world, sent to berlin to study, came back to korea, cheated on her then-bf with her best friend’s boyfriend so she ran away with jisoo to mgh

youngest only child of the kim family (tbc on what they do but they are rich but they are not in art world)

family lacked love, as with most rich families. hers never even tried - mum was a socialite, too busy chasing her youth with champagne flutes and mercurial highs to give a shit about her. dad just gave a shit about work more. maybe they never wanted children? maybe it was just part of their societal duties? mina has never tried to understand it and perhaps, never wants to

had an elder sister who she was quite close to

but when she was six, her sister passed away in a freak accident

mina’s escapist tendencies intensified

made up stories about adventures of her and her deceased elder sister, started drawing and painting disturbing material to the point that her nanny, concerned over mina’s development, begged her parents to send mina for a psychological checkup

they found nothing wrong but her parents distanced themselves even further. she’s not sure whether it was because they couldn’t handle the loss of her older sister, or she scared them, or that they realized that there was no point even trying anymore

one of her parents’ friends and a teacher at her prestigious school saw that she had a gift for art, told her parents mina had potential

she was then shipped off to berlin to hone her art in a prestigious art school

when she was fifteen, her grandparents threatened to cut her parents out of their will if mina didn’t come home, and so, she was sent back to korea for her high school years, where she did struggle to fit in but it wasn’t like mina really tried. continued painting, went on frequent overseas trips to europe, stirred a lot of shit and ruined many friendships

got into seoul national uni - started sleeping with her best friend’s boyfriend, even though she was taken herself (why? for the shits and giggles? for the inspiration? just because mina wanted to? because he looked at her drunk one night and said, “you’re really pretty” and she didn’t want to hurt his feelings, so she did it behind her best friend AND boyfriend’s back, just to get the brief affection of someone who doesn’t even matter now? who the fuck knows)

essentially fucked her entire social life over and that was when mina realized she fucked up because seoul wasn’t like berlin where she could just run away and never return

around that time as well, she’d been talking to jisoo and when he (deeply in love with her at that point, and unaware of what had transpired) suggested she transferred over to mugunghwa, mina felt that it was the best possible option given the whole dramatic mess of her life.

over at mugunghwa, no one really knows what happened in seoul or why mina transferred. there are rumours about it though

wanted connections

thank you if you made it this far! she only recently transferred to mgh during the spring semester so i don’t really have that many wanted connections!! always open to brainstorm :)

someone who has an inkling of what went down in seoul and is/was deeply suspicious of her relationship with jisoo

someone who puts her on a pedestal, and truly believes she is as great as they say her to be

someone who keeps her grounded? or as grounded as possible?

someone she does not like because they were mean to her face lol

painting classmate friendships ‪♡‬

#( ‪♡‬ / ooc. )#mguintro #( i apologise its long but hmu and we can exchange dcs if that works better too! )

7 notes · View notes

devinetheory-2 · 5 years ago

Text

Why Do Narcissists and Borderlines Lie So Much?

Many things can destroy trust and intimacy between partners when one is a high conflict person, often someone with borderline or narcissistic personality disorder. But one of the top ones is lying--especially when it is about extramarital contact. A disclaimer: not all people with BPD or knowingly NPD lie. It's just that those who do lie so thoroughly and often that they spoil it for those who do not.

Just What Is a Lie?

First, let's define what a lie is, because what constitutes a lie and the truth is a gray area. The book Lying, Cheating, and Carrying On (edited by Salman Akhtar and Henri Parens) contains several essays about lying. In the essay "Lies, Liars, and Lying: An Introductory Overview," Salman Akhtar, M.D. lists several types of lies that are conscious lies, i.e., those that Pinocchio knows are false.

Here are examples that a 17-year-old girl might tell to parents who went on an overnight trip and left her at home "alone."

1. Lies of omission: telling the truth but not the whole truth in a way designed to mislead ("While you were gone I watched a DVD"--not mentioning the five people who were also over and who drank beer).

2. Not speaking up when asked a direct question: (Silence when asked, "What did you do when we were gone?")

3. Making up facts that are not true: ("I did my homework while you were gone").

4. Embellishing the truth is a way that misleads: ("I took care of the cat"--meaning she petted it a few times but forgot to feed him on time or change the litter box).

5. Insisting that a truth known to someone is a falsehood: ("I did not have friends over!").

6. Gaslighting: an attempt to erode another's reality by denying their experience ("No, the house looks exactly like it did when you left. Is there something wrong with your vision?"). One woman in therapy once said that nearly all the quarrels in her family was about whose reality would be dubbed the "right" one.

7. Acknowledging the truth but assigning motives that were never there to make yourself look better: ("Yes, I had people here but only because I was so lonely without you that I was getting very depressed and started crying").

8. Keeping secrets for the wrong reasons: (One of the friends stole the mother's expensive earrings).

Unconscious Lies

Now let's look at unconscious lies, or untruths that the teller believes on a conscious level. Being truthful takes the ability to be honest with one's own self, because if you're not honest with yourself, you won't be honest with others. For example:

1) When a narcissist says that everyone loves and respects her when it's obvious to others it's not true, that's an unconscious lie. Les Carter explains this well in his book, Why Is It Always About You?: The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism. He writes (p 17):

In a sense, narcissists are out of touch with reality. They are not mentally ill, like a psychotic; they are just unwilling to acknowledge truth that doesn't match their preferences. While normal people can weigh events rationally and draw fair conclusions about themselves, narcissists do not. They lack the objectivity to live with reasonable insight because their need for self exaltation does not allow them to accept that their perceptions might not be the ultimate truth. Their idealized view of themselves blinds them as they try to make sense of life, particularly the elements in themselves that might be imperfect or that might require adjustments (and they never want to make adjustments).

2) When a borderline's intense emotions lead him to use projection or emotional reasoning ("feelings equal facts"), that's an unconscious lie. When we are gripped by a strong emotion that doesn't fit the circumstances, we interpret what is happening in a way that fits with the emotions we are feeling instead of the facts presented to us. In other words, we seek to confirm what we already feel and ignore new evidence that does not fit, maintain or justify the emotion. We all do it, but people people with BPD (who see things in black and white and have unstable, intense emotions) do it to a greater degree.

And as if that weren't enough, lingering negative feelings about other issues make one more likely to see negative intent. People with BPD tend to remember every hurt "done to them" as though it happened yesterday. Their false conclusions lead to problematic decisions and behaviors since they're always assuming the worst. They also project their own feelings onto others, so their "You hate me," means "I hate myself." These are untruths, but not really overt lies (as damaging as they may be).

It's hard to tell the difference between a conscious lie and a conscious one. A man says, "It is like we both walk into the same movie theater. I thought that we entered into see the same movie. We sit together. We enter and leave at the same time. But afterwards, I learned that what she saw was entirely different from me, even though we sat and watched the same movie. Her version is no where even close to mine."

What Clinicians Say About Lying and BPD

In the essay "Lies and Their Deception" in the same book, Lying, Cheating, and Carrying On, Clarence Watson, JD, MD pulls no punches when he says, (p. 98):

Given that a BPD hallmark is interpersonal relationships that alternate between idealization and devaluation, the person with BPD may distort facts aimed at the person with whom they desire a personal relationship.

Whether through attempts to draw persons into [intense and rocky interpersonal] relationships or viscously attack another during episodes of the extreme rage associated with perceived abandonment-the borderline personality may use lies and deceitfulness to accomplish these objectives.

Impulsivity and poor impulse control, he writes, means they may not consider the impact of their words before they speak. "In the moment, their desired objective, whatever that may be, takes such precedence over speaking the truth or behaving honestly that the potential consequences of their conduct are reduced to shadowy details."

Other reasons for lack of truth-telling

Some statements may start out as deliberate lies; over time, they become real (the old saying, "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth"). Some statements may be exaggerations, such as a woman accusing her husband of "strangling her" when he touched her neck. People with BPD--especially the conventional type--may judge themselves harshly and expect others to do the same. Lying serves to deflect shame when something might make them look bad, thereby maintaining whatever self-esteem they have on a temporary basis.

This backfires on those people with BPD who then feel worse for having lied (or at least being found out).We all have things about ourselves we would prefer others not know. But we see the good and the bad and hope others do, too. With their black and white world and rejection sensitivity, people with BPD believe that anything "bad" would make others reject them.

Lies may create drama and gain attention. One woman lied that she had been raped to get her boyfriend's attention when he had not been paying enough attention to her.Lies may mask real feelings and put up an impressive façade; this is especially common with invisible BPs.Lies may help make sense of why things happen to them in their mixed-up identity.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Some lies maintain the facade of the False Self: the perfect, superior self the narcissist thinks she is or pretends to be. On a more conscious level, lies are central to:

* Staying in power and keeping things under control

* Keeping the flow of narcissistic supply (adulation by others, which are like ambrosia to the NP)

* Satisfying the grandiose, entitled self

* Avoiding any shame if their status is not as high in reality as they think it should be

* Minimizing the onerous possibility of having to concern himself with your needs.

A Few Examples from Partners

* "He lied consistently about his earnings even in the face of documentary evidence."

"* She told me she had cancer when she didn't."

* "He lied consistently for at least a decade regarding fidelity. He used gaslighting techniques to convince me that I was imagining 'missing' condoms from packs in our bedroom."

* "She denied verbal abuse, telling me that, 'I never called you names when anyone else was listening.'"

* "He refused to say where he was going, where he had been, or when he intended to return home--even when doing so was simply to facilitate normal family life-mealtimes, etc. His most oft-used sentence was 'That'll never be known.'"

* "He lied about his history of dyslexia, even when it would have helped our sons with the same problem."

* "She said she had a night class when she went to a hotel weekly with another man."

So how can someone consciously lie like this? NPs have no empathy. They require narcissistic supply--what's a little lie when your very survival, is at stake? And besides, they think, rules apply to other people. Under these circumstances, telling falsehoods is probably uncomplicated and effortless. Watson says, "Overall, their frank manipulation of others may be part of a 'by hook or by crook; mentality to accomplish their goals."

3 notes · View notes

justaredballoon · 4 years ago

Text

Rainy days after weeks of sunny days always feel dreary and reflective to me. Maybe because it forces you to once again retreat indoors, after days spent working and playing in the sun, soaking up those new spring rays of light and life. Then the rain and the cold and the winds hit to remind you that winter isn't quite gone yet. Not all things have been made new. Old memories are still fresh wounds.

Today I finished a graphic novel a friend had given me for my birthday back in June. I used to carry the book with me, walking in a coat and big boots down my little track neighborhood to the greenbelt around the block. Trying to be aware of the following eyes of middle aged white men and concerned moms, and the judgemental looks of kids playing in the street and yards. With head phones in I tried to walk with confidence, but also invisibility.

I would reach the park and find a quiet spot in the grass, where I would sit cross legged, smoking joints I rolled myself; my one time of the day to get away from my house and my parents. Well, my mom. But anyway, I'm getting distracted.

I stopped reading the story because I got caught up with painting for a friend and then moving out. And then I had a falling out with the friend who gave me the book.

Erin. She wrote a lovely message in the book. About how I'm surrounded by people who love and care about me, about how the book reminded her of me and how much she thought I'd like it, and how she wished me love and happiness, always. Maybe she meant it at the time, but after everything that happened it all feels like hollow well wishes, and shallow words of appreciation. How was I to predict that in a couple months time she would be refusing to speak to me for an undefined period of time, removing me from all social media, because of a misunderstanding. I know I lied, but it felt like such a drastic move, to cut me off, after 10 years of what I thought was a good friendship. Sometimes I still miss it.

We made up, short of. She follows me on social media again, but still has no interest in talking. It's okay. Because of a falling out she had with another mutual friend, where she did the same thing she did to me, I no longer have a interest in trying to keep the friendship. But sometimes it still hurts to think she could write such sweet things about me, would invite me to things and talk with me when i was struggling, and then want nothing more to do with me.

The book is further burdened with my associations because it's about a daughter's complex relationship with her mom, something I also have. It represents these 2, once close, now horribly distant and strained relationships, both where I thought I had a secure object of emotional comfort, only to have that connection severed by the other person, so as I'm left wondering if it was even real the whole time; realizing the foundation was built on conditions I didnt know could be so easily unmet.

On of my old psych professors, anjeanette, said it's good for love to be conditional, and that really upset me. I know what she meant, people should have conditions, or standards or expectations, that should be met in order to have love, like respect and such. But conditional love is a sore spot for me, because almost everyone that I've loved had only loved me back with conditions. I latch onto people, wanting to give them my all, becoming emotionally fixated on them as my source of comfort and peace, not realizing that the other person doesnt even come close to having the same feelings for me. I'm not saying mine are healthy, I dont think they are, but my point is I am willing to offer devoted loyalty to someone, but they are not capable or willing to offer the same to me. They are more willing to drop me when I, for whatever reason, dont meat these expectations or whatever they have for me. I'm always dropped, not good enough, wanting me to be something I'm not. It feels like no one knows me or wants to. They have this idea of me, but as I get more comfortable and attached, and reveal more of myself, no one wants to stick around.

Huh, this kinda makes me sound like I'm just shitty or something, which reinforces what I already think. I have a lot of trust issues and insecurities, and fears, so it's hard for me to open up, to let people in. I dont like doing it, cuz again, they always leave. Erin was someone I didnt think would leave. I was in love with her, in a way I guess, love is weird, and I think she knew and it made her uncomfortable, because she saw me as just a friend. I think that's why when I involved her in a lie, she felt so betrayed. How could someone who loves you lie about you? But I still dont think her response was right either. I wish we could have worked through it, but I think the fact that she's not willing to shows more on her.

I'm thankful to have hector. I feel actually like he sees me as me, and loves me for being me, all the good and the bad. But I still feel alone. I dont have many friends left. But I guess I didnt actually have many before either. But I cant blame everyone, I dont really let people in, and will actively distance myself and not pursue people. Do people make me feel like I'm hard to love, or am I actually hard to love. Maybe both. You get told certain things, directly or indirectly, and pretty soon you internalize it. A self-fulfilling prophesy of self sabotage, reinforced by outside people. It's always been something I've struggled with, this need for people to love me, despite my flaws, this idea of unconditional love. I suppose I think if someone could love me, despite of me, I could in turn love myself, because it would mean I actually am someone deserving of love. But instead I have internalized the message that I'm not deserving of love, and love can be taken away at any moment, so it's better to just be quiet or please the person or be what they want you to be, inorder to keep attaining their love. But of course you can never please people, so it's a doomed strategy from the start, and you're accused of lying because you had this "secret" version of yourself hidden from them. But you only did this to not upset them, to make yourself more appeasing, because you wanted to guarantee their love and acceptance, but you upset them anyway, so what was the point of all that?

#okay thats enough of being my own therapist and psychoanalyzing myself and my relationships #why was it so hard for me to get love and feel love #like shit man #the more i think about it the more i realize everything comes back to this need for acceptance and my lack of getting it #anyway #journal #personal #3/3/21

0 notes

inexpensiveprogress · 8 years ago

Text

John and Russell

Augustus John - Self Portrait, 1920.

After the Second World War had effectively ended with the United States dropping the two nuclear weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th and 9th, 1945, the world was closing one door to war and opening another into the Cold War. This was both an arms-race and a stand-off. Peace movements and rallies had some worth to them then.

Augustus John joined the Peace Pledge Union as a pacifist in the 1950s, and on the 17th September 1961, just over a month before his death, he joined the Committee of 100's anti-nuclear weapons demonstration in Trafalgar Square, London. At the time, his son, Admiral Sir Caspar John was First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff. It can only be guessed that Caspar John was not happy about it. Further more he was invited to join an CND demonstration by Bertrand Russell.

From Augustus John Fryern Court, Fordingbridge, Hants. (Postmarked 15 Feb 1961)

Dear Lord Russell, Your message was brought to me while I was working in the studio (not the one you knew, but one further off) by the gardener. I told him how to reply, which he said he understood but I don’t know if he did so correctly. All I wanted to say was that I believed in the object of the demonstration and would like to go to prison if necessary. I didn’t want to parade my physical disabilities though I still have to follow the instructions of my doctor, who I think saved my life when I was in danger of coronary thrombosis. A very distinguished medical authority who was consulted, took a very pessimistic view of my case, but my local doctor, undeterred, continued his treatment and I feel sure, saved my life. All this I meant privately & am sure you understood, even if the gardener garbled it when telephoning.I wish the greatest success for the demonstration on the 18th although I can only be with you in spirit. Your Augustus John,

A few days later on the 18th February 1961, Bertrand Russell can be seen sitting under the banner of Action for life, a peace protest against nuclear weapons.

At a peace protest for the commemoration of Hiroshima Day on the 6th August, 1961 Russell was arrested when he took part in a sit down protest.

At the age of 89, Russell was jailed for seven days in Brixton Prison for "breach of peace" after taking part in the anti-nuclear demonstration in London. The magistrate offered to exempt him from jail if he pledged himself to "good behaviour", to which Russell replied: "No, I won't."

Cartoon from the Evening Standard refers to the week-long prison sentence served by Russell in September 1961.

After he had spent a week in jail he was released. In October he gave a speech in Trafalgar Square.

Extract of Russell’s Speech in Trafalgar Square, October 29, 1961

Friends, During the last decades there have been many people who have been loud in condemnation of the Germans for having permitted the growth of Nazi evil and atrocities in their country. ‘How’, these people ask, ‘could these Germans allow themselves to remain unaware of the evil? Why did they not risk their comfort, their livelihood, even their lives to combat it?’ Now a more all-embracing danger threatens us all-the danger of nuclear war. I am very proud that there is in this country a rapidly growing company of people who refuse to remain unaware of the danger, or ignorant of the facts concerning the policies that enable, and force, us to live in such danger. I am even prouder to be associated with those many among them who, at whatever risk of discomfort and often of very real hardship, are willing to take drastic action to uphold their belief. They had laid themselves open to the charges of being silly, being exhibitionist, being law-breakers, being traitors. They have suffered ostracism and imprisonment, sometimes repeatedly, in order to call attention the facts that they have made the effort to learn.It is a great happiness to me to welcome so many of them here - I wish that I could say all of them, but some are still in prison. We none of us, however can be entirely happy until our immediate aim has been achieved and the threat of nuclear war has become a thing of the past. Then such actions as we have taken and shall take will no longer be necessary.

We all wish that there shall be no nuclear war, but I do not think that the country realizes, or even that many of us here present realize, the very considerable likelihood of a nuclear war within the next few months. We are all aware of Khrushchev’s resumption of tests and of his threat to explode a 50 megaton bomb.

We all deplore these provocative acts. But I think we are less aware of the rapidly growing feeling in America in favour of a nuclear war in the very near future. In America, the actions of Congress are very largely determined by lobbies representing this or that interest. The armament lobby, which represents both the economic interests of armament firms and the warlike ardour of generals and admirals, is exceedingly powerful, and it is very doubtful whether the President will be able to stand out against the pressure which it is exerting. Its aims are set forth in a quite recent policy statement by the Air Force Association, which is the most terrifying document that I have ever read. It begins by stating that preservation of the status quo is not adequate as a national goal. I quote: ‘Freedom must bury Communism or be buried by Communism. Complete eradication of the Soviet system must be our national goal, our obligation to all free people, our promise of hope to all who are not free.’ It is a curious hope that is being promised, since it an only be realised in heaven, for the only ‘promise’ that the West can hope to fulfil is the promise to turn Eastern populations into Corpses.

The noble patriots who make this pronouncement omit to mention that Western populations also will be exterminated. ‘We are determined’, they say, ‘to back our words with action even at the risk of war. We seek not merely to preserve our freedoms, but to extend them.’ The word ‘freedom’, which is a favourite word of Western warmongers, has to be understood in a somewhat peculiar sense. It mains freedom for warmongers and prison for those who oppose them. A freedom scarcely distinguishable from this exists in Soviet Russia. The document that I am discussing says that we should employ bombs against Soviet aggression, even if the aggression is nonnuclear and even if it consists only of infiltration. We must have, it says, ‘ability to fight, win, and purposefully survive a general nuclear war’. This aim is, of course, impossible to realise, but, by using their peculiar brand of ‘freedom’ to cause belief in lies, they hope to persuade a deliberately uninformed public opinion to join in their race towards death. They are careful to promise us that H-bombs will not be the worst things they have to offer. ‘Nuclear weapons’, they say, ‘are not the end of military development. There is no reason to believe that nuclear weapons, no matter how much they may increase in number and ferocity, mark the end of the line in military systems’ development.’ They explain their meaning by saying, ‘ factor in the international power equation’. They lead up to a noble peroration: “Soviet aims are both evil and implacable.

The people (i.e. the American people) are willing to work toward, and fight for if necessary, the elimination of Communism from the world scene. Let the issue be joined.’ This ferocious document, which amounts to a sentence of death on the human race, does not consist of the idle vapourings of acknowledged cranks. On the contrary, it represents the enormous economic power of the armament industry, which is re-enforced in the public mind by the cleverly instilled fear that disarmament would bring a new depression. This fear has been instilled in spite of the fact that Americans have been assured in the Wall Street journal that a new depression would not be brought about, that the conversion from armaments to manufactures for peace could be made with little dislocation. Reputable economists in other countries support this Wall Street view. But the armament firms exploit patriotism and anti-communism as means of transferring the taxpayers’ money into their own pockets. Ruthlessly, and probably consciously, they are leading the world towards disaster. Two days ago The Times published an article by its correspondent in Washington which began: ‘The United States has decided that any attempt by East Germany to close the Friedrichstrasse crossing between West and East Berlin will be met by force.’ These facts about both America and Russia strengthen my belief that the aims that I have been advocating for some years, and upon which some of us are agreed, are right. I believe that Britain should become neutral, leaving NATO to which, in any case, she adds only negligible strength. I believe this partly because I believe that Britain would be safer as a neutral, and without a bomb of her own or the illusory ‘protection’ of the American bomb, and without bases for foreign troops; and, perhaps more important, I believe it because, if Britain were neutral, she could do more to help to achieve peace in the world than she can do now. †

Augustus John’s portrait of Bertrand Russell.

† Bertrand Russell's America: His Transatlantic Travels and Writings. Volume Two 1945-1970: 2

#Augustus John #Bertrand Russell #CND #Jail #British Art

2 notes · View notes

ma-kedia-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Enjoy the Failures

Doesn’t that sound strange, “enjoy your failures”? Succeed, win, achieve, that is the anthem that has rung in our ears since we were young; shunning failure and perceiving it to be the ugly stepchild. Of course, we all want to succeed in life, and success is a beautiful place to be, but sometimes we need a little failure in our lives. Allow me to explain, failure presents the opportunity for knowledge to be gained, it gives way for discovery. Failure is a fuel to ignite thorough thought. I am solely speaking on my own experience, but when a problem presents itself and resolve is immediately required, there is no need to invest any additional energy into that single issue. Unaware of the potentially more prosperous applications that could have resolved that same matter. Even though possibilities are endless, sometimes we cut ourselves short because something has worked.

Are there areas in your life that work, but you still feel there is something missing? Or rather does life seem to be working and while life is working, you are in autopilot? I know you have caught yourself daydreaming while you were driving and before you know it, you were pulling up in your driveway like…” I don’t know how I got here” …confused and thankful that Jesus took the wheel (LOL). Unconsciously is how most of us, as human beings, live for several reasons. One reason seems to be a fear of failure. We have been trained and raised to cultivate societal standards, capture surety, and to cherish security; which is a false sense in and of itself, but that is a different conversation. In this western society, we are fed daily; since birth to follow a path that worked for someone else—go to school, compete to be the best, go to the best colleges and get a great education, find a job that provides a competitive salary and outstanding benefits, work hard within that industry and work your way to the top. I am not against education and I am not against working for someone in or outside of corporate America until you are 65 years old, it just seems that someone thought of a path and the masses followed. Because what alternatives were you exposed to—maybe the military or work in a minimum wage job and live a minimal lifestyle? There is absolutely nothing wrong with you making those decisions too as long as YOU actually made the decisions for yourself, and not simply accepting the path because you were trained to ‘choose one of the following.’ You must realize you have a choice to choose the path and the outcome of your existence. Live the life you desire, whichever path your purpose offers you, trek forward with confidence knowing that you have no idea what lies ahead but whatever it is, it is worth it. Within the vicinity of purpose, fear has no place. However, failure is necessary for the growth and maturity that potentially awaits its end.

The association of fear and failure seem to walk hand and hand in the shadowy corners of our minds. The misconception of this seemingly unbreakable relationship between the two is solely imposed upon us due to miseducation (thank you Lauryn Hill—lol). Mark Frankel, a US philosopher, tackles the initial barrier surrounding the study of fear saying— “The study of fear and the other emotions is not the preserve of psychotherapists or professors of philosophy. Rather it is done by any thoughtful person who meditates upon his or her own feelings, thoughts and actions”. It is for those of us who want to dismiss fear, delight in failure, and denounce falsehoods to begin to study the why behind the what. Why do I fear failure? Who taught me to fear failure? Why do I possess an objective perspective upon failure? We must begin to think for ourselves, actively creating the world we desire—starting with our perspectives. When we change our perspectives, we change our lives. Therefore, I choose to enjoy the failures in life, and show gratitude for the opportunity to think wiser, more thorough thoughts. The growth received from that opportunity birthed through failure is infinite in its applicability. Consistently challenging yourself in thought increases your own standard of logic. Developing a desire to concentrate your energy to think beyond social normality and fed knowledge, and apply that to any opportunity life may bring. Conscious behavior, such as facing the truth of fear and embracing the opportunities of failures, can become active in our lives with a desired awareness, adequate education, and constant applied mental effort. “We must begin to focus on making ourselves better and not just thinking that we are” (Bohdi Sanders, The Secrets of Worldly Wisdom: Your Key to Unlocking Success).

Whether we realize it or not, we all are looking for more in our lives—more power, more will, more of something! Some of us ignore that desire, some passively begin to ponder, and others search for resources that will help us gain that power. Most times we may see someone who has attributes that we do not display in our daily lives nor in our occasional discoveries of character or abilities, and we begin to desire that which we see in someone else. Beyond desire, we may perceive ourselves as less because we do not see in ourselves that light we see in others. Again, miseducation has shown its face; Nisargadatta Maharaj provided clarity so well when he stated, “All you need is already within you, only you must approach yourself with reverence and love. Self-condemnation and self-distrust are grievous errors.” Therefore, it is not a lack of possession that is present, rather a lack of awareness and activity. In this comprehension, it becomes evident that if we change our perspectives we change our lives. If I recognize, reverence and love the energy, the life force—Spirit who lives within me, I overstand it is not a matter of acquiring a power or trait but activating that dormant ability. It is not our ability in our flesh but the life force within that leads us and shows us who we are. We all can decide how we view failure, with fear or faith. In my own work, I have found the first area of power that must become active within us is the power of perspective.

Friedrich Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Our interpretations are shaped by our experiences and our experiences by our emotions and our emotions arise through choice. What decision do you choose to make regarding activating the power of your perspective? Anyone can practice conscious decision making, at any point of the day. Daily practice is necessary, when someone cuts you off in traffic STOP and think, what decision do I want to make in this situation? And begin to think of the benefits and blockages that may occur; what good will rise from this situation? What am I accomplishing with this decision? Are you focused on making yourself better? We must begin to think consciously and not impulsively. Notice when you are about to do something habitual, stop in that moment and intentionally make a conscious decision to accomplish the same task using a different method. Begin to evaluate the things you refuse to try because of a fear you would fail or it would not be accepted by society. Whether it is a change of hairstyle, trying a different style of clothing, starting those in-home workouts you pinned to your Pinterest health and fitness board, whatever! Just go for it, because you can only live today. We do not worry about, ‘what if I don’t keep it up next week?’ We only do today, “Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble” (Matthew 6:34 NKJV)

I would like to share a story with you all:

During a research experiment a marine biologist placed a shark into a large holding tank and then released several small bait fish into the tank.

As you would expect, the shark quickly swam around the tank, attacked and ate the smaller fish. The marine biologist then inserted a strong piece of clear fiberglass into the tank, creating two separate partitions. She then put the shark on one side of the fiberglass and a new set of bait fish on the other.

Again, the shark quickly attacked. This time, however, the shark slammed into the fiberglass divider and bounced off. Undeterred, the shark kept repeating this behavior every few minutes to no avail. Meanwhile, the bait fish swam around unharmed in the second partition. Eventually, about an hour into the experiment, the shark gave up.

This experiment was repeated several dozen times over the next few weeks. Each time, the shark got less aggressive and made fewer attempts to attack the bait fish, until eventually the shark got tired of hitting the fiberglass divider and simply stopped attacking altogether.

The marine biologist then removed the fiberglass divider, but the shark didn’t attack. The shark was trained to believe a barrier existed between it and the bait fish, so the bait fish swam wherever they wished, free from harm.

The moral: Many of us, after experiencing setbacks and failures, emotionally give up and stop trying. Like the shark in the story, we believe that because we were unsuccessful in the past, we will always be unsuccessful. In other words, we continue to see a barrier in our heads, even when no ‘real’ barrier exists between where we are and where we want to go.

(http://www.marcandangel.com/2013/05/21/4-short-stories-change-the-way-you-think/)

Just like this shark some of us have stayed contained because of life’s failures, we must grow in patience and thought. We must learn to let go of what has kept us from trying, embracing failure can be as easy or as hard as you make it. A great quote by Henry Ford states, “whether you think you can or you think you can’t, you’re right.” Acceptance of failure causes one to face, evaluate, and eliminate fear and doubt. Therefore, the question to yourself would be, ‘are you ready to face your fears’? Facing your fears engenders truth—truth of who you are, truth of your desires, truth of your endurance, flaws and strengths. This path of truth is not for the faint of heart, it’s not given to the swift nor the strong but if you endure…welcome to freedom.

Be love,

Ma’Kedia

#think #best fails #try #live #consciousness #freedom #strength #limitless #tryagain

2 notes · View notes

adaralondon · 5 years ago

Text

Their Eyes Were Watching God: A masterpiece underappreciated in American Literary culture.

From the start of her childhood, Janie’s life was full of issues. Raised by her grandmother (referred to as Nanny in the book) from birth, she never knew her parents and the little parental influence she did have was authoritarian. While the authoritarian parenting style may[JC1] make it easier to control the children, there are many psychological issues that start to develop as the child [JC2] grows up because “they do not focus on meeting the child's existential and emotional needs [and] are more concerned about the child living up to their adult standards, norm abiding ideas, consensus values, and expectations.” (Positive Parenting Alley). By using this parenting style alone, Nanny restricts Janie’s ability to find out who she really is, affecting self-esteem and self-confidence hence why she only seeks men who appeal to her need for a parental figure or are authoritative by nature. In the novel Their Eyes were Watching God, Janie’s problems stem from the way she was raised and how she is viewed by the people around her (Greater than them because she is half white).

According to Erik Erikson − who along with Freud theorizes that are stages important[JC3] to a child’s development− Janie is in the stage [JC4] where anything from here[JC5] will contribute to how she sees herself for the rest of her life, particularly her budding interest in the sexuality of humans. These are the essential ‘Who am I? What is going on with my body/feelings?’ questions all children must answer for themselves. Janie attempts to figure out who she is through pleasure, in the form of masturbation (under the pear tree) and physical contact with her peers.[JC6] “On a late afternoon Nanny had called her to come inside the house because she had spied Janie letting Johnny Taylor kiss her over the gate post.” (Hurston 36). Psychologically speaking children begin an in-depth exploration of their bodies and other’s around them between the ages of 10- 16, so her actions are not entirely out of the way. However, Janie’s grandmother refuses to acknowledge her granddaughter’s need to grow out of this stage (As all children do) and forces her to marry a middle age man as a sixteen-year-old girl. Maslow’s hierarchy of need states that a person cannot move to the next level without fulfilling the bottom tiers first, and Janie is never allowed to have her sense of self (the level she would be trying to fulfill as a 16year old girl) because of her grandmother’s fear[JC7] . This notion forever halts Janie’s development because she never gets the opportunity leave this stage on her own but is rather forced out of it. In the end, it is her Achilles heel, as she loses everything.

Janie, in addition to being sexually inept, is also continuously confused about her role in society. Nanny seems to have accepted her role as someone who will never escape the economical chains placed on black people and black women in particular: “De nigger woman is de mule uh de world. “(Hurston 39). However, Janie, who does not know where she fits in, is not content with her grandmother’s submission. Being a mixed child who lived in the ‘White folks’ backyard she was better than other children but at the same[JC8] time subjected often to many prejudices. This more than likely further confuses her on where she fits in, she thinks [JC9] often to herself: “Am I better than them or Am I one of them?’ When she marries Logan, the middle age man, she is unhappy because he takes away the freedom she has known as a lighter skinned woman by making her do all the hard laboring (what poor dark skin woman would be doing during this time). It is as he sees Janie as a tool to manipulate, a slave to his whim, which is why she runs off with another man.

Janie’s behavior as a young woman is not inherited, it is learned. Since Janie cannot be with her parents or complete the stages of development that she missed (without a proper trigger at least), she seeks out fulfillment to an infinite continuum. By doing this she herself fails to realize that A.) these things are unobtainable − you can never receive your parents love from someone else− and forever seeking them will cause her to remain insecure/codependent. B.) that when she finds a person that can indulge her needs she will quickly lose interest because they have lost the attractiveness of re-experiencing her childhood trauma. “We unconsciously behave in a way that will allow us to ‘play out’ [Repressed Memories/trauma], without admitting it ourselves, our conflicted feelings about the painful experiences and emotions we repress.” (Tyson 12-13). A great explanation as to why she cannot balance herself in society and why she sees herself in such a low light enough for her only haven is being controlled by a man.

Fed up with being controlled, Janie leaves Logan for a man named Joe. He bates [JC10] her with sweet talk quickly making her believe he is in love with her, just as she has always wanted someone to be [JC11] “You ain’t got no business behind uh plow as a hog is got wid uh holiday!” [JC12] (Hurston 52). “Janie, if you think Ah aims to tole you off and make a dog outta you, youse wrong. Ah wants to make a wife outta you.” To Janie this is her taste of freedom, however, she is skeptical because Logan is a man who has authority over her. However, being raised by an authoritarian grandparent, Janie associates authority with safety, which why she is skeptical about leaving her safety net, Logan, for a mysterious man who offers her the same freedom as Johnny Taylor did so long ago.

Janie does indeed go off with him, unable to deal with Logan need to control her anymore and begins to feel contentment in the life she lives. Joe establishes a small town that he becomes the mayor of and Janie as his wife, lives the ‘high life’. However, this attraction is short lived because just like Logan, Joe seeks only control her. He isolates her socially and physically, slowly taking away the freedom she thought she had gained by leaving Logan. He prevents her from talking to the townspeople (because he is jealous, and they are too poor to even associate with her), makes her work in the store, and does not allow her to show her beautiful hair to others. To Janie, her hair is one of her most important features, her pride. It is long and straight, symbolizing the freedom she once had at the Pear Tree in her youth. As time flows on with Joe beginning to become emotionally abusive, Janie is still unable to leave him because of her learned helplessness, but she does begin to speak out against him. As she notices he is dying, she no longer feels compelled to live by his rules. Joe’s death is the gear that finally restarts Janie’s cog, she is able to restart the process of becoming herself. So when Joe dies, she lets her hair down for the first time in twenty years.

Joe’s death, however, causes more harm than good for Janie. Men start to pour like rain, making their interest in her clear from the jump. But rather than being attracted to her as a person, they’re attracted to her whiteness, her long straight beautiful hair. Janie does not share this sentiment and is content in her loneliness because in her loneliness she is free to do whatever she wants, free from the harsh critiques of men, free from just being known as the mayor’s wife instead of just being Janie. However, just like everything her life, her freedom is short lived.

Teacake is the last of Janie’s suitors and the last piece to the puzzle before Janie feels as if she’s truly found herself. He also is young and misguided fulfilling her need for a man who is lost just like her. Although Janie is happy with Tea cake[JC13] , the townspeople are not. They feel as if their light-skinned, long-haired, and rich mayor’s widow should not be associating with someone so poor[JC14] . “Dat long legged Tea cake ain’t got doodly squat. He ain’t got no business makin’ himself familiar wid nobody lak you” (Hurston 116). This is the first explicit instance of classism in the novel. The other instances are hidden amongst the African American community viewing and accepting that will never be any better than the white men and left at that.

The classism has always been there in fact, as Janie realizes that from the time she was a little girl that she was ‘better’ than other Black’s her age because of her mixed-race heritage. She also realizes that she holds a much higher social standing than everyone in Eatonville because she is the mayor’s wife. Even when Joe dies Janie is still beheld as the town’s treasure. The townspeople become disgusted that Janie is attracted to someone who’s obviously below her, someone so “niggerish”. However, Tea cake makes Janie happy in a way that she has never felt before. He teaches her to play checkers (a man’s game), takes her fishing at night, and closes shop with her, which allows her to feel on equal terms to a man for the first time in her life. He buys her gifts and picks out a color, blue, for her to wear. Teacake reminds Janie of her kiss with Johnny Taylor, of what she wanted her life to be. “Ah done lived grandma’s way, now ah means tuh live mine” (Hurston 126). Tea cake is Janie’s first and last taste of freedom.

As we reach the final chapters of the book. Tea cake proves himself to be no better than Joe or Logan. Although he does not see her as an object, as a partner who is equal to him in terms and stature, he is still manipulative. He steals Janie’s money, lies to her, and even beats, her something neither of her husbands have ever done. He fulfills her sexual desires (her first to ever do so), but he is jealous and possessive just as Joe. He is also reckless, something Janie confuses with rebellious. This kills him in the end as he refuses to leave a town destined to be swept away by a hurricane and is bitten by a stray dog who gives him rabies[JC15] . Ironically as Janie seeks freedom while she is with him, she is the one who chooses to free him by making the choice to end his life. This shows that Janie has finally developed her own sense of self and no longer needs to rely on finding missing pieces through the men who come into her mouth. She did not have to choose to shoot Teacake when becomes infected with rabies and instead could have allowed herself to be killed by him. This shows Janie’s growth as her choices may have varied from the time when she had first met him. Her choice to shoot him proves that she is finally okay with herself, with being alone, with being just Janie.

Their Eyes were Watching God shows the journey of a black woman who seeks to find herself in all the wrong places. It shows her transition from insecurity to being satisfied with who she is at that moment in time. The book is profound in its writing style and overall theme as it can even be[JC16] compared to The Awakening written by Kate Chpoin. However, the book is not critically acclaimed and has even been banned in United States Schools and curriculum. Perhaps this was because Zora Neal Hurston was a black woman, or because it was because the African American’s in the book were portrayed as rich, or maybe it was because a woman explored her sexuality without constraint. Unfortunately, no one knows the reason why her works were not praised, however, I am hoping that by reading this academic paper others will realize that Their Eyes Were Watching God is more complex than a novel just about a woman exploring her sexuality in physical terms. I hope that readers will soon realize that this novel is about a black woman who embraces her struggles the only way she knows how and that she is the product of her environment. However, she refuses to let it define her and searches for her true meaning/love in life. As some oppose and continuously fight for this novel to remain on the banned book, one aspect opposers fail to realize is that this book portrays a deeper meaning than what the average reader may see, a simple story portraying a black promiscuous woman.

1. African American critique: Why did The Great Gatsby earn more prestige than TEWWG? They are written in the same literary time. Is it because TEWWG focuses on a prosperous African American town in the south as an opposed to Rich white American man forcing himself on a married woman in New York City?

Works cited:

“Strict Authoritarian Parenting: Long-Term Psychological Effects.” Positive Parenting Ally, www.positive-parenting-ally.com/authoritarian-parenting.html.

“Psychological Effects of Poverty.” The Borgen Project, 8 Jan. 2018, borgenproject.org/psychological-effects-poverty/.

#black literature #critical methods #theory #essay #formal writing

0 notes

nicemango-feed · 8 years ago

Text

Not Oppressed Enough : Being the Wrong kind of Ex-Muslim

For those asking over the past few days, wtf happened to start these mob attacks on me: Well...I'm not entirely sure, because they sort of came out of the blue. There's a general rift in left-leaning atheists and right-leaning atheists. And 'right-leaning' is seen as some sort of slur, when it's just an observation based on the politics coming from some of these types. If you're anti-left on everything, and rarely ever anti-right...it says something. Especially today. This split continues to become more pronounced in these times of the rise of the far right. While lefties are looking to focus some of their criticism there, others are trying to resist and silence that criticism.

Basically a few days ago, some dude I had never heard of, called @FuriousFossa was upset that I tweeted about not knowing what Taqiya was till I got on twitter. Despite growing up in Saudi. Because this didn't confirm his previously held beliefs, what good are ex-muslims if they can't confirm your bullshit views?! Then, someone upset him further by saying that people using that term while criticizing Islam are usually bigots. OMFG the B word!! We have to be extra PC with that word, so as not to upset the delicate sensibilities of the anti-PC, anti-sjw crowd, why can't everyone know that!!

And I'd agree, people insisting on using that word are usually pretty loony...(as was proven in this case). I've got news, Muslims can lie without any special religious permission. Just like any other theist. This isn't a widespread muslim conspiracy to deceive people. It's a niche concept that most aren't even aware of. And I mean, there's just so much actual terrible stuff that is commonly practiced in Islam (polygyny for one) to criticize anyway, there's little reason to cling defensively to obscure things like Taqiya. Here's another ex-muslim perspective on this:

Fossa was also upset I wrote something (to someone else, not him) about how pointing to ISIS is a great whataboutery tactic for apologists of the western right. Just point to ISIS, it'll always be worse, and you're off the hook.

That's it two strikes for me, and he decided he wanted to disprove my entire background and lived experience. This way, you know, once I was totally discredited...at least he'd know I was wrong about the concept of Taqiya, and he was right! Trying to prove me dishonest, after being upset I didn't confirm his views on a dishonesty concept in Islam....almost like...trying to prove me a taqiya-er. How taqiya-esque.

It got me accusations of deflecting away from the obvious point that ISIS is worse (which i'm sure I've said myself roughly about 9465 times. I just don't feel the need to utter it every time... with literally any other criticism of anything other than Islam.

It also got me accusations of trying to deflect from criticism of Islam. Lol.

Yeah. I'm sure it does take a little more than a bio, maybe like years and years of work of criticizing Islam, that are useless now apparently because I also criticize the Western right. These criticisms can't get any less intelligent, honestly.

*** Then...of course, Lalo - always on the lookout for jumping on any criticism of me, Joined in and helped to float the conspiracy theories to a larger audience (who knows why - I've barely interacted with the guy in ages...he's still always infuriated with me). And then Yasmine, who, it seems, had it out for me since we had a private falling out during Gad's last unhinged meltdown at me.

#TheTriggering of @gadsaad http://pic.twitter.com/F2ifbm3UcB

— Armchair Critic (@JoelRDodd) December 2, 2016

Because she, as my friend, publicly tweeted how those attacking me, and me were equally 'embarrassing' or something. I tried to privately discuss it with her, she deleted her tweet I believe, but it was clear she wasn't too sympathetic to the attacks on me because, she tweeted I was equally at fault..and because I criticized Gad/Rubin's far-right associations in the first place. People she clearly considered allies. I was pretty disappointed and put off, but my reaction was not to go out and slander her. I just silently disengaged and went about doing my own thing, which still included criticizing Gad and Rubin's shady associations. Of course, silly me. I didn't learn or keep my mouth shut after the last round of baseless attacks. Lalo even tried circulating the 'she's not a real ex-muslim' thing that time, but I think it got lost in Gad's endless stream of hate.

Then months later, this happened. This time Lalo got more traction. *** The Nitty Gritty Gather round peeps, I’m gonna share a really absurd tale about supposed ex-muslim allies, supposed critics of sjw style 'oppression olympics' and sjw ideological purity tests…but who are now furious because an ex-muslim they disagree with ideologically/politically in their minds was not oppressed ENOUGH.

A fellow ex-muslim, that I have personally promoted, jumped in happily to weigh-in on the drama and attempt to negate my lived experience by claiming I just *dabbled in oppression*, haven’t truly experienced it or anything… My life was like a 5 star resort apparently...and everyone else seems to be a good judge on what kind of life I had in sharia-land.

I wasn’t oppressed enough in Saudi fucking Arabia…This is a *real* objection raised by some, including a fellow ex-Muslim.

Let that sink in.

It's not even by people I actively debate or disagree with…but people I have little to no interaction with. They don’t understand the first thing about life in Saudi, none of them have lived there.. but are telling others far and wide what my life experience was like. They are giddy from having ‘exposed’ me, caught me out in some lie about the duality of life in Saudi Arabia as an expat. They've been working hard for this one.

Oh my.

Whatever will I do now. They’re on to me.

Not like I’ve podcasted about the duality of life in Saudi here, here, here, or here….and not like i’ve specifically addressed this strange juxtaposition in articles myself or anything. I have never claimed to be the most oppressed person in Saudi Arabia, quite the opposite in fact. I have always talked about being lucky to have the kind of life I did there. But, despite that...my life certainly wasn't free from the application of Sharia law, from standard Islamic theocracy regulations, that were just absorbed into my life as 'normal' because I knew little else.

Yet - They have clipped some audio, from *my own show*…that I do *publicly*…to demonstrate how ‘dishonest’ and contradictory i’ve been.

Great question indeed. Maybe try checking out the work of the person you're accusing, your question might be addressed in the very episode you're clipping.

(let me come out and say now that I’ve lived in both Saudi and Pakistan, lest they do some other genius clip about my ‘contradictions’ ..sometimes you will hear me talking about going to school in Saudi, sometimes you will hear me talking about going to school in Pakistan. It’s because both are true… not because I’m a secret spy or Taqiyya-er who can’t keep her lies straight)

This is almost too easy to mock and ridicule, I feel embarrassed for them, I do, and I’d normally just ignore insignificant people.. but they keep going on and on. They keep being told how wrong they are at each turn too. Brutal. But they’ve backed themselves into a corner now… the only thing they can do is double down and lash out at me…Not admit they made a mistake or something, and were wrong to accuse me based on zero evidence. That would be the decent thing to do.

A lovely summary from the detached-from-reality point of view, calling me an insult to women and ex-muslims suffering under sharia, this was posted on lalo's public thread.

I imagine this will only get crazier as their rage grows…because they cannot discredit me based on things I’ve been entirely honest about. Since I'm the wrong kind of ex-muslim, I do not get the charitableness anonymous ex-muslim accounts they don’t have issues with get.

Mostly, people on both ends have an issue with me because I refuse to pick a team. I think criticizing both Islamic far right and western far right is important. And I think in Trumpian times, Its vital to focus *some* of my critique on the western right and its apologists. When that toxic stuff overlaps with criticism of Islam, it does nothing but muddy the waters, and hold back valid criticisms from resonating with the mainstream. ***

Know this:

I do not exist to confirm any narratives.

I occasionally deviate from my appointed role as provider of anti-Islam masturbatory material.

I exist simultaneously as an ex-muslim woman who grew up under Shariah (that’s right I said it again), who will harshly criticize Islam when relevant, as an expat from Saudi who will tell you that in some bubbles life in Saudi was pretty secular at times, and as a *Western* liberal feminist. So I will have critiques of western sexism and misogyny too. And I will speak up against anyone pitting different aspects of my identity against one another. Do not use sharia to silence western feminists, and do not use western perspectives to silence women who speak up about hijab, etc. This is whataboutery. Women everywhere should want to better their situation. We are far from perfect equality even in the west.

I am happy to criticize feminism when it goes off the rails, but I do not buy into the “feminists are the real sexists” bullshit, or the western feminists should stfu because they aren’t getting stoned to death.

Anyway, I will have happy memories of my childhood in a secular compound in saudi…I will have tales of women bathing topless at my compound pool…and I will also have tales of being forced into a black bag against my will because of the ‘Muttawas' or morality police as we called them. I will have tales of having a great secular education, and I will have tales of horror where I, only a child, saw my mom’s ankles hit by a muttawa’s cane because her headscarf slipped in the market. I will have tales of being shepherded quite literally with sticks by morality police in Mecca who herd the women hastily into a segregated prayer area for women. I will have tales of being pushed to the ground and almost trampled because of the morality police forcefully segregating us in Mecca. I will have a story or two about running…being chased by muttawas as they yell behind me for my headscarf slipping…of narrowly making it into a car that was driven for me (because I did not have the right to drive)…and of the muttawas catching up, and grabbing on in vain to a little bit of black fabric as our car sped off and it slipped through their hands. I will have such stories of escaping the morality police in the street.. and of feeling fear, and… of feeling comfort ...that for some hours I had a compound to go home to…and to shed the black cloaks that I wasn’t given a choice on. A reverse amish compound as I’ve literally referred to it before.

I encompass all those identities and I’ve repeatedly, honestly explored them with my audience…I’ve pointed to the absurd duality. Yet the savage internet mobs who hate me (which only used to consist of islamists at one point..but now they are fewer than the rabid western right wing apologists) have portrayed this as some great shady conspiracy. Some incredible contradictory set of stories that simply cannot be consolidated.

It must be that I’m lying about one or the other.

“Either you grew up on a compound, or either you grew up in sharia - which is it” — heaven forbid they put some thought into it and realize, well… oh…it can actually be both! Imagine that.

Cue fellow ex Muslim, previous guest of my show Yasmine to jump in and cast further doubt. She posts an ad for the most extravagant compound in the entire country, and projects that onto my experience. My compound was nothing like Aramco, it was incredibly small and modest in comparison, but thats irrelevant, even if it were Aramco I'd have to experience Sharia every time I left. My life was not better than the life of most Canadians because I was still forced into a black bag against my will, pretty much every day. Morality police and their canes were a regular sight, I had few rights as a woman. But sure, please go out of your way to discredit my lived experience. Why they did this appalling thing, and insisted on it even after being told how it could be both...is beyond me.

Real classy.

Lol, cuz growing up in Saudi in a compound is TOTALLY like vacationing in the nicest hotel in Havana for a few months.

Cue random person who just isn't satisfied:

Not good enough apparently.

Still not good enough.

"I don't like what Ali had to say so I'm going to fill in my own details despite never having lived in Saudi or knowing anything about life there." "Eiynah barely left the compound, went to school on the compound" Umm, No. Actually I left the compound every day, to go *to* school. I just love that details about my life are authoritatively being discussed, without any actual knowledge, ffs. Yes I barely ever had a real conversation with a Saudi, I've talked about this several times. It doesn't mean I didn't speak to Saudis on a daily basis in the markets, and shops, etc. It just means I never actually had the chance to know a Saudi national closely and have a proper conversation with them because we were kept segregated. Something I have discussed repeatedly.

Not even multiple corroborations of this reality are convincing enough. No no, everyone who says this is lying, but these random internet people who know nothing about life in Saudi, are here to 'non-Saudi-splain' to me that my experience is inauthentic, that I’m an embarrassment to women who *really* live under sharia. I'm just an imposter, who lived under sharia but also had access to a community pool. So you know, discrediting my story is fair game. I also had air-conditioning. The luxuries I’ve been hiding from you all.

This is the same group of people mind you, that get upset when people try to discredit Ayaan Hirsi Ali's lived experience of being a victim of FGM. But because I don't fit the mould they'd like me to, and also will criticize people within the islam-critical scene. You can make comics to mock and laugh at my life experience.

Minus the *face* covering, both those pictures were my reality actually.

No amount of refutations of the lies put out there about me are enough. Surely anyone with a shred of principle would object to random false accusations being used to smear someone. I mean these ‘principled' types are out in droves when someone slightly misrepresents Richard Spencer the nazi or Milo. “I don’t agree with their ideas but” just doesn’t extend over to ‘the wrong kind of ex muslim’ I guess.

----Worse still…Yasmine, once a friend…someone who’s had a terrible experience under Islam no doubt.. I would never discredit her experience despite her vicious attacks on me, She’s someone I empathized with, with all my heart.. But somehow she has it out for me because I’m, you know, a shit disturber who derails from *only* criticism of islam, by having a problem with fellow atheists when they promote rape apologists or… white genociders… why can’t i just keep my head down and perform the role that is laid out for me as an ex muslim? Criticize islam, thats it. ----

This is especially funny because the example of loony he uses is someone normalized, legitimized and promoted by..none other than the person he's defending. Also what is up with the weird mentions of "loyalty", like if you've disagreed with me on Rubin, no need to be "loyal", just be honest. I won't respect that view, but it's better than dishonesty.

Yeah its totally mental and a delusion of grandeur to expect someone like Rubin who claims they are liberal to not promote rape apologists, like they've done nothing wrong...or white genociders. This is a convenient strawman of my position on Rubin, used repeatedly. I don't care if he aligns with me on every single thing, I enjoy some of Sam Harris' work, I don't agree with him on everything (as you might have noticed on my episode with him). I enjoy some of Maajid Nawaz's work...I don't agree with him on a lot, since he is an adherent of religion and I'm not. Heck, I don't think I agree with anyone on everything. But I do expect people to at least not look the other way on *rape* apologetics, White Genocide, Islamism...important values like that matter to me. they aren't some tiny, nitpicky details. For some people , I guess opposing *only* Islamism is important. (Oh, and not like I'm currently being targeted for a difference of opinion). Ah, the lack of self-awareness.

pic: via @vinikako

@NiceMangos @AkiMuthali It struck me as I was writing it that the people who've been going after you lately seem to want to establish an orthodoxy for ex muslims.

— Lefty Conspirator (@NoKnownFuture) March 31, 2017

Whatever mine and Yasmine's differences on Rubin were...was no reason to jump on the Lalo bandwagon to openly try to discredit my entire existence with no evidence. To post tasteless memes about me trying on some oppression, just dabbling in it for fun.

A) "Dabbling in oppression." What kind of person do you have to be to say that sort of thing- and without any intimate knowledge of the person who's life you're talking about. B) It's not all about passports, but yes to a great degree, people in Saudi are valued more in the workplace depending on their passport - another thing I've talked about on my podcast. However, when living in Saudi I had a total, bottom-rung, treated like garbage Pakistani passport, not a Canadian one. Wrong again on all counts. C) I hope you don't ever criticize concepts of white privilege or PoC being romanticized, because that doesn't come close to this level of "oppression olympics". It's just so so callous, can't wrap my head around this.

I’m at a loss for words, honestly. I wouldn't have expected stooping to this level. Though, things got a bit weird with her after Trump won, she was overly defensive about criticism of Trump voters. Since then, I’ve seen her compare DNC/Keith Ellison situation to Nazi Germany… in this TRUMP ERA

… I’ve seen her rejoice at the GOP winning….

I'm sorry but "I'm so glad GOP won" isn't a liberal sentiment, even if in response to Linda Sarsour, who's basically the flip-side of the problem to Rubin. Another sanitizer, downplayer, legitmizer of another far-right. But somehow calling out this version of far-right apologist is ok!

… I’ve seen her downplay the inhumane 'Muslim ban' that separated families. That could have potentially prevented people like her, from escaping the ME when they needed to. The idea that people around the world could be upset at the principle, despite a lack of their personal involvement... why is that so hard to grasp?

I'm happy to call out Linda Sarsour for this. But this is the same issue I take with Dave Rubin, he is masquerading as a liberal or at least pushing / doing apologetics for right wing conservativism, imo - And some people obviously prefer if you call out only *one* side of this. But sadly not only do they prefer it, they go after you in mobs, and try to discredit your entire being for speaking up on both.

My concerns of the easy slide to the right are pretty self evident. This is something ex-muslims are particularly vulnerable to, I myself have been courted by the right. But actively resisting it in the face of rising popularity isn’t something everyone can do. It's why I'm not too bothered about popularity. I'll happily take being less popular and more consistent.

Anyhow, she’s used this whole dumping on me process to tag Rubin in a tweet…and whaddaya know… get a spot on the Rubin Report, as I had predicted! Prove me right, that’ll show me!

***

I guess it means that there’s not many of my views that they can effectively argue against if my critics have to resort to weird conspiracy bullshit about me not really being who I say I am.

Imagine how stupid and risky it would be to make claims about being an ex-muslim from Saudi growing up under sharia and then to do a podcast series talking with people who lived there for real (unlike me)… about the details of life there. Why would I put myself in that situation? And if I wanted to make up my story, why not make up full oppression to the worst degree. Why this better compound life?

@NiceMangos @AkiMuthali @SurlyCripple @StrictlySid unless you've lived under locally-sourced artisanal sharia, I don't want to hear from you

— Martin Mannion (@NataliasDad) March 30, 2017

Lalo know’s that I’ve seen my mother hit by morality police, he knows these experiences but still wants to question and delegitimize. These are the same people so disgusted (rightfully so) when Greenwald misrepresents Sam Harris. How are these guys any better I ask? If we cannot have standards simply because someone is Islam-critical, then we are no better than the Greenwald's we so love to criticize.

#NotShariahEnough

Lets remember what’s really important here though... I am not oppressed enough. I am just pretending to be because it’s hip.

Thanks Yasmine!

So being forced to wear a hijab can be oppressive even in Canada (I agree). But being forced to do so by the state in Saudi is just 'dabbling in oppression'...like life in a 5 star resort!

It's baffling, it is.

But the only ongoing beef this crew has with me is over a difference of opinion on someone like Rubin or Douglas murray. Inevitably, if you probe their criticisms of me they end up around the fact that I don’t like Douglas Murray, that I had the audacity to have Sam on my show and do something other than talk about what we already agree on (yes, Islam sucks), that I had the audacity to ask Sam his views on or make him aware of what other prominent atheists are doing, that I shouldn’t criticize Rubin (no matter how much evidence I have) - It’s petty to go after bad actors on this side apparently. But its incredibly noble to go after Werleman, or Reza Aslan or Linda Sarsour or Glenn Greenwald.

Opposing bad ideas& apologists for people with bad ideas consistently is ‘tribal’ & ‘petty’. Picking a side and avoiding self-criticism is truly rational. Heck if I thought that way, I’d never have left Islam. (But have I really? how will we ever know?)

Yup, its the left that can’t tolerate dissenting views. Meanwhile Lalo blocked me long ago for having a conversation on MY podcast, with someone entirely unrelated.. whom he claimed to not even know… sure never mind it was known anti-muslim conspiracist who thinks Maajid Nawaz behaves like an Islamist. And Obama may have been a secret muslim. My questioning Robert Spencer so deeply offended Lalo, the champion of tolerance and rationality…

lol.

And remember, I'm the one supposedly with 'mental' 'delusions of grandeur' about people having to align 100% to my views for me to like them.

Now we’re at a point where the desperation to discredit me for wrongthink is so evident… my criticism of Rubin, Gad and co is based only on what they actually say or do, observable facts, I am happy to provide proof for any allegations of them promoting far-righters or even to talk to them, but none of these Classical Liberals wish to engage with the actual criticism, and none of them want to talk to me.… So - in retaliation for my evidence based criticism I get smears based on nothing…and some onlookers think this is a tit for tat. It’s being framed absurdly, as an equivalence. Which I will object to every time.

Lol, I'm the monster for objecting to what Rubin does. Not Rubin, for promoting rape apologists.

And, this is the passionate defense Rubin gets..that doesn't even engage with the criticism of him. It's not who he has on, but how he talks to them.

Yes, my cunt-like overreaction after days of being dragged through the mud, consisted of me simply saying its 'bullshit' to equate me with the people smearing me. And not to tag me in such tweets again.

Imagine if someone you considered a friend and ally suddenly interjected themselves into a public smear campaign about you, simply to put out a false equivalence to tens of thousands of followers.And basically say, 'its not my problem'...so they're all cool. Well, I guess it'll be #NotYourBeef next time someone is slandering Ayaan, as well. I mean of course, if someone finds themselves caught in an awkward position, theres the option of just steering clear and not involving yourself. Which I'd totally respect. But if you're going to publicly say they're A-Ok after what they did to me, then I will always object. #WhatACunt, couldn't even graciously accept a respectful equation between people lying about me, and me.

I'll say this again, I’m criticizing someone who is promoting far-righters in an environment ripe with hate crimes (very much the flip of what Linda Sarsour does with Sharia/Saudi Arabia, etc.)…There’s a legitimate reason to do this… this is not about hating someone personally. It's as necessary imo, as this very group of people think their criticisms of Cenk, Reza, Linda, CJ Werleman are.

The attacks on me are however are just pure hate…disagree with my actual views any time. I'd welcome honest disagreement, but don’t lie about me ffs. As Lalo says:

The Irony.

If I respond and defend myself against such baseless accusations I’m accused of being the petty one who just won’t shut up and let people spread lies about me. Ugh Eiynah….why so petty? Why can’t you just let people say hateful ridiculous stuff about you? The other 'petty fight' she's referring to below, is the previous Gad meltdown. Which consisted of days of him bashing me as an 'anonymous troll', 'Queen of anti-semites', 'plumpy pineapples'...because Jerry Coyne posted a pretty mild (evidence-based) comment of mine about Gad and Rubin promoting far right people like Tommy Robinson, PJW of Infowars. His meltdown is documented in this thread.

Anyhoo, I wanted to make note of this instance for just how crazy hypocritical it has been. Who knows where we’ll go from here…this is the ‘community' that supposedly values evidence but has few issues with the guy who legitimizes Infowars while crying that mainstream media are fake. This is the community that is constantly, (rightfully) upset at Ayaan being silenced for her harshly critical views on Islam, but won't really care if some from within are trying to silence ex-muslim views on the internal problem of legitimizing western far-righters. If you care about ex-muslims and muslim women's rights so much...you should technically care if the people potentially mistreating them are muslims or western far righters.

On paper many will have the correct answer to opposing the right wing hijack of criticism of Islam, but putting that into practice, gets met with resistance and character assassinations as you can see.

They call themselves ex-muslim allies. Nope… just when ex-muslims stick to criticism of Islam, and serve a purpose…

They are bothered by my anonymity now.. but had no issues with it for years when I mostly just criticized Islam. (They have no issues with more agreeable ex muslim accounts either). Now, I'm this 'divisive' person who won’t stfu about the Western right, when hitler salutes are in existence again. Let's stick to the important facts though, it's the left that's always at fault. Misrepresenting even people like Richard Spencer. He's not a white supremacist, silly lefties, he's a white nationalist.

Rubin and Lauren Southern talk about how Spencer isn't really a white supremacist and no one knows the arguments against white nationalism http://pic.twitter.com/h0y06Uur4T

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) March 2, 2017

***

There are many offshoots to this attack on me too… so many ppl with all this rage uniting against me … its really rather sweet that everyone came together like this to pile on total lies, false equivalences between me and my smearers.

Right, I'd LOVE to see evidence of this. I once long ago said that mocking muslims as dirty for eating with their hands, is not a legitimate criticism of Islam. This borders on some real weird bigoted territory. And this woman has obsessively stalked my twitter ever since, despite being blocked.

I'm sure she has no troubling views or anything.

Lol, in this instance its not her, but others are clearly using it to get her on yet another wonderful, totally liberal show with no history of far right support.

Staunch A (from above screenshot) has residual anger for me, because I wrote a blogpost calling out an anti-migrant publication she worked for. Run by the guy who tweets this stuff:

According to Yasmine I smear everyone, even though she participated in smearing and discrediting *me* completely uninstigated. To them smearing is simply when other people object to their lies. When people defend themselves... its an attack. Ok then.

This is truly some detached-from-reality, totally lacking self-awareness stuff. A) Smear someone, sling mud. B) Post tasteless memes negating their lived experience, because u don't like their views C) Accuse them of being intolerant of differing opinions D) Accuse them of smearing *everyone* & mud-slinging, when they defend themselves. E) Say you're the victim in all this. F) yes the only reason i'm speaking up about her now in the middle of a smear campaign is because she's more popular than me. That must be it.

***

If I emotionally distance myself from this cyber-flogging for my crime of blaspheming against Gad/Rubin/Murray its actually a fascinating case study of in-group out-group politics... and hardcore tribalism from people who are claiming to reject tribalism.

All they can do is think critically about pre-approved opponents Reza or CJ werleman, Cenk, Greenwald, Sarsour… if someone in their perceived in-group has the exact same tactics they’ll go out of their way to demonize anyone calling that out...

Charges against me

I said Yasmine was pandering to the Right and said she was an opportunist for using this specific instance to get airtime on Rubin. - provable through her own tweets, fb posts. Like seriously…she can go around discrediting my entire existence, post memes about me dabbling in oppression to be cool or something, and I can’t even in response point to actual behaviour I’ve observed, that might explain why out of the blue she chose to do this? As someone who promoted her, I think I can safely say she used me and my platform and publicly discarded me when she had no more use for me. I can’t even begin to fathom what kind of ex-muslim would say ‘she dabbled in oppression’ about another.

I criticize Rubin, Gad and Douglas Murray - only ever based on what they actually say/endorse..not on personal attacks. Though Dave and Gad have tried to retaliate via personal attacks. I welcome disagreement with my views, and have offered to speak to them many times. But they avoid engaging with my actual criticisms and avoid discussion.

I say Dave and Gad pander to the right - how is this even controversial? "Mr. Why I left the left, let me work with Dennis Prager on how shitty the left is", and "Mr. 'Trump has the superior position on Islam', and 'let me get Geert Wilders on my show to piss of Eiynah'"

I’m divisive - sure only as divisive as anyone pointing out Islamism is bad and apologists for it are bad.

I deflect from criticism of Islam - um.. nope? Have u seen my work? I just object to people using Islam to deflect from criticism of the western right.

I haven’t been oppressed enough. - Lol

I have not had as hard a life as people who didn’t live in a compound in Saudi - agreed. Never claimed that I did, in fact always have made this distinction, if u only took the time to look into my work, listen to my conversations with Saudi women.

My claim of growing up under sharia is untrue - Nope.

I once said to someone in a Tweet i’ve only personally *met* about 3 niqabis - so i must not know much about oppression/Sharia. Er, no. Having personally *met* and sat down with very few niqabis doesn’t mean i didn’t grow up around them, go on the bus with them every day, see them in the market all around me, see them in every waiting room, community gathering etc, etc. I personally don’t have such a religious family, and we don’t personally know such extreme religious people. I’ve met a handful, and its really uncomfortable talking to people in a black mask. I’ve lived around them my whole life though, and probably had many insignificant interactions with them. But no, I just don’t *know* many is all.

My ex muslim story is so dubious that even EXMNA had to reject me - Nope. Refuted. But not retracted, by Mr. Honesty himself.

It was mean of me not to graciously accept Michael Sherlock’s public false equivalence of people who smear me and me, right in the eye of that storm. I said that’s bullshit, so its understandable he jumped to “You are the monster u revile” “You are a crazy cernovich conspiracist about Rubin” (yeah ok if u think cernovich is crazy, then u should have no problem with the fact that i think Rubin normalizing cernovich’s craziness, is crazy) and then “cunt” x 2. - I’ll say it again…what an asshole thing to do to a friend…I have not known Michael to be like this, so I’m wondering if he was abducted by aliens or something ? Or if my criticism of Rubin had been building up as some sort of anger towards me? I don't know.

I’ve said before that in Saudi many of us weren’t aware of the extent of how barbaric some of the punishments were - like of course we heard about public beheadings and those rumours circulated, they weren’t publicly discussed or acknowledged in detail because…as any idiot would know, life in Saudi Arabia is a heavily censored in many ways. One of the most censored and silenced topics is the violation of human rights in Saudi. This doesn’t mean I have no experience living under sharia, it means this is one of the effects of living under sharia ffs. Information is kept from you in an Orwellian way. #NotShariaEnough indeed. Where else do you live under fear of morality police, think sneaking around with alcohol (moonshine) as a teenager could lead to death or deportation, where else are you forced into black bags without your consent? Where else do you live life as a woman knowing you are a second class citizen. That if you are potentially raped, there is no real recourse. Where else could you experience morality police canes?

I once said this to a guy in very frustrating conversation, where not even this was as bad as sjws to him.

which is presented by my critics as me saying all people who like or have been on Dave's show are fans of white supremacy and rape apologetics. Now if you actually read what I said, it says…”if you don’t have a problem with the promotion of those things” , clearly.. you’d be a Rubin fan… this is pretty self explanatory I think. But by now you’ve seen my critics aren’t very smart at all. Dave Rubin demonstrably promotes white genociders (a white supremacist conspiracy theory that builds fear about interracial 'breeding') and rape apologists unchallenged, laughed Mike Cernovich's rape apologetics off as 'Rattling Cages' ffs. This is one of the main criticisms against him. If thats fine with someone, or they are happy to look the other way because he serves some other agenda of crushing the evil SJWs who run the world…. then why would they NOT be a Dave Rubin fan? If you can overlook these things, yeah you'd be a Rubin fan. Im sure many people are Rubin fans just out of ignorance though, who aren't aware of the bigger picture or details of the kinds of people he's promoting, because he doesn't present these troubling guests accurately. In fact he presents them in the best light possible, as allies. But if you know, and don't find it to be a problem that's troubling.

I hate that Dave Rubin talks to controversial people - No. I’d be fine with his exact same guest list if he simply challenged these guests on some of their disturbing views, or if he at least made his audience aware of why these people are controversial in the first place. Instead it’s a nodfest. This is very harmful, especially in this political climate. And has visibly made the atheist scene toxic and overlap hugely with infowars /alt-lite/alt-right audiences. I actually really enjoyed David Pakman's interview with Richard Spencer. He did what Rubin pretends to.

I am somehow upset with Yasmine because she's more popular than me..haha. It certainly couldn't be that I decided I will no longer be silent about things I've observed about her, only *after* she contributed to negating my entire life story. Because those things might help to explain why she went after me like this. Also, last I checked I had quite a lot more followers, undoubtedly she'll get more if she goes the Rubin/Gad/Lalo route..but it hasn't happened just yet...so that too, is just false. I also said she was pandering to the soft right, not that she is right wing.

Ok but with Brilliant arguments like this, they definitely got me here:

Clearly this is a contest between Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and Dave Rubin. Because Jihadis will always be the worst, undoubtedly (and we come full circle from how this started with Fossa being angry 'I deflect from Islam')…I guess worrying about the rise of far right hate and extremism in the West where many of us critics of Islam live, is just silly and frivolous. Not like the US has stepped few decades back in the past months or anything. Nothing to see here. Promoting white genociders and anti-feminists should proceed as normal.

Sadly this is the state of self proclaimed liberal twitter atheists, they resort to fox news tactics. And I'm not supposed to notice there's a problem.

Why can’t I just pick a team and stfu with all this inconvenient in-group criticism. It’s tribal *not* to. Such a smeary cunt-monster cuck, Eiynah. And I bet you haven't learned your lesson yet, about staying silent on these things. I bet you think the resistance to this shows just how important this topic is to discuss. No ideas above scrutiny, freedom of speech, etc.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; color: #9e4a2f} li.li1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline} ol.ol1 {list-style-type: decimal}

How about now? Will you be quiet now? --- Nope. ----------------- Thanks to those who stuck by me during the smear campaign. Thanks to those who are real friends, and thanks to those who support my work. New Patrons and old. Much love to you all. If you'd like to support my work you can do so here

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2n8HTwi via IFTTT

0 notes