Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Malcom X

Lesser Of Two Evils? Drones kills children like us…

The Obama Administration, and the democratic party in general, owes an incredible debt to the marginalized people who put them in office (particularly black and brown people), and yet, once they got there, they made most of the policies that would improve the lives of those very people their very last priority.

Mia McKenzie dreams of a world without Presidents, but that world isn’t here yet.

Mia posted: “When the Lesser Of Two Evils Isn’t Enough

“Yesterday, I wrote a post called Michelle Obama Looked Great Last Night! (Oh, By the Way, You Been Took).

In it, I used a quote from Malcolm X to illuminate the fact that the Obama Administration, and the democratic party in general, owes an incredible debt to the marginalized people who put them in office (particularly black and brown people), and yet, once they got there, they made most of the policies that would improve the lives of those very people their very last priority.

Whenever I write anything like this, whenever I criticize President Obama and his administration, it is met with some version of, “Well, who do you propose? Romney? You want Romney as President?” Some people get hella mad.

Of course I don’t want Romney as President. I consider Mitt Romney an evil man, and the idea of a Romney presidency is a nightmare scenario in my mind. A Romney presidency would surely be worse even than the Bush presidency was.

Bush took office during “good times” in this country, during low unemployment and a budget surplus. Romney would be coming into office under much more dire circumstances. The state of the economy still has people really afraid. And if history has taught us anything, it has taught us that the more afraid people are the easier they are to control.

The worst policies are enacted when people are too distracted by fear to notice, or too consumed by fear to see reason. No, a Romney presidency is certainly not what I want.

But the truth is, a Obama presidency is not what I want, either. I believe that war-mongering is just as bad when done by a black Democrat as it is when done by a white Republican. 

A well-delivered speech by a smart, pretty First Lady on her husband’s behalf doesn’t make up for the deportation of 1.4 million “illegal” immigrants during this administration (that’s 150% as many as Bush, by the way). 

“New black cool” does not erase the murder of innocent people, including children, by drone strikes in the Middle East. Not for me, it doesn’t. I am amazed that for so many of the people I know, many of whom are smart and good and thoughtful, it somehow does. Somehow, a smile and a new set of promises is all they need.

I need more than that. And yet, I’m told, these are my only choices. I am told that if I don’t vote for Obama, it’s like voting for Romney, which is worse (it’s really not that much worse). Obama may be the (very slightly) lesser of two evils (this from those who agree and are even willing to admit that Obama isn’t a great choice).

The thing is I’m sick and tired of having to choose between evil and slightly less evil. And it’s scary to see how content people are with such a “choice”.

It is the insidious evil brilliance of this corrupt system that gives us a “choice” between red and blue and encourages us to fight it out, year after year, decade after decade.

A system that has us debating the merits of blue over red, and screaming at each other over the moral soundness of red over blue, all day every day, in churches and workplaces and at bars with our friends.

A system that has us so passionately defending or attacking red or blue that we never stop and ask,What about yellow? What about purple? What about green with orange polka-dots?.

A system that makes us forget (because it is in the best interest of both red and blue that we do forget) that this is really not much of a choice at all.

You want a shit sandwich or a crap-kebab? Choose! And remember that if you don’t choose a shit sandwich, then that’s just as good as choosing a crap-kebab. Is that what you want??!

This is how the two-party system is set up. It’s a trap and we’re stuck in it. If we don’t vote for Obama, we’ll get Romney, and it will be bad.

If we vote for Obama, we’ll get Obama, and it will be bad. Maybe not quite as bad on the surface. Which, I guess, is enough for a lot of people, especially those who don’t look beneath the surface.

I wonder what it would be like to have a President who was more than not quite as bad on the surface. More than just the very slightly better of two extremely shitty options.

I wonder what it would be like to feel genuine, critically sound, eyes-wide-open approval of my country’s President and his or her or their practices. I can’t even imagine that, let alone what it would be like to have a President who was my ideal, my dream of a leader. If I were to fantasize about such a person, I might imagine this:

A person who wouldn’t drop bombs on helpless brown children under the guise of “fighting terror”, when in fact there are few things more terror-inducing than dropping bombs on children.

A person who wouldn’t ignore the specific reality of black poverty and unemployment because, politically, he can’t appear to care too much about black people (ironically, the same black people who support him no matter what).

A person who wouldn’t redefine war as being defined by the extent of U.S. casualties, no matter how many thousands of foreigners are killed.

A person who, instead of attending $10,000-a-plate dinners with wealthy, white, powerful gays where he pledges personal support for their right to marry each other, would know and say out loud the names of people like Cece McDonald and Brandi Martell.

Sigh. If only.

But no. My “choices” are Obama and Romney. Blue and red. And maybe some third-party candidate who doesn’t even have a shot. And if I don’t vote for Obama, if I let the fact that I am physically sickened by the idea of casting a vote for someone who perpetuates so much violence in the world deter me from casting that vote, then I am wrong because I “might as well be voting for Romney”.

Something is very, very wrong here.

I am tired, too, of the idea that unless I have a solution for these extremely complicated problems that I should stop “complaining”. That’s an argument of the oppressor. I’m not a political policy scholar. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a right to identify the wrong I see in the political system, and in the world around me, and to express my feelings about it.

That said, here’s what I think we should be doing: dismantling the two-party system.

John Adams said of the two-party system:

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

Now, he and I disagree on what, precisely, should have been dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. But still. His point is otherwise valid.

At the risk of sounding overly intellectual, the two-party system is uber yucky. And, honestly, I don’t know any way to change it that doesn’t involve many years of serious political turmoil. What I do know is that the alternative to that is a system that continues to fail us, in perpetuity, forever and ever, a system in which we never get free of poverty and inequality and corporate personhood and the control of women’s bodies.

A system in which we are still fighting these things twenty and thirty and forty years from now (if we don’t blow each other up or get eaten by zombies before then), and still demanding of each other that we cast a vote for the slightly less awful candidate who will do slightly less awful things in the world.

The kind of change that is needed (desperately) to prevent this is a change that it would take a long time to affect, but we have to start in order to ever get there.

I think we have to start by changing our thinking around the “lesser of two evils” approach and by writing and talking about this much, much more. It’s unfortunate that these conversations only ever come up in election years, when people are so afraid of the “greater of two evils” ending up in the White House that they don’t even want to have this discussion. Because it needs to be had.

We need to, at the very least, not criticize people who dare to suggest that they don’t feel good about voting for either candidate. The reasons for such hesitation are good and sound and should be understandable to anyone who takes the time to educate themselves on the policies and practices of these two political parties, which are incredibly similar and in many cases incredibly scary.

It makes sense for someone to not want to vote for either of these dudes, it really does. So instead of knee-jerk reactions, how about some careful thought and consideration of this issue? Because 25 years from now, when it’s Willow Palin vs. Tavis Smiley, Jr., with no alternative in sight, we’re gonna be salty as hell.

Mia McKenzie is a writer, a scrappy Philadelphian with a deep love of vegan pomegranate ice cream and fake fur collars. She is a black feminist and a freaking queer, facts that are often reflected in her writings, which have won her some awards and grants, such as the Astraea Foundation’s Writers Fund Award and the Leeway Foundation’s Transformation Award.

She has a novel debuting in the fall and has a short story forthcoming in The Kenyon Review. Her work has been published at Jezebel.com, and recommended by The Root, Colorlines, Feministing, Angry Asian Man, and Crunk Feminist Collective.

She is a nerd, and the creator of Black Girl Dangerous, a revolutionary blog.

Philadelphians! Register for the Black Girl Dangerous Writing Workshop!

Part 3. Pan-Africanism: A reaction to colonialism program in Africa…

You may first read the previous Part 2 https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/part-2-connecting-a-few-dots-colonialism-and-blood-money-in-africa/

It was against the background of genocide in the name of “European civilisation” that Africans in the Diaspora who had been shipped from Africa and enslaved in the West Indies and in the Americas realised that the solution to Africa’s people both at home and abroad was Pan-Africanism.

Pan-Africanism is a political philosophy that was conceived in the womb of Africa and formally organized in 1900 by Sylvester Henry Williams.

Pan-Africanism is relevant to Africa’s people as a solution to their problems.

1. Its effectiveness and prowess were demonstrated at the 5th Pan-African Congress in Manchester in 1945. It is Pan Africanism that won present political freedom for Africa and reversed the African tragedy and humiliation that was orchestrated at the Berlin Conference.

2. It is Pan Africanism that brought about the Organisation of African Unity, the African Union, the Pan-African Parliament and Africa Liberation Day that Africa’s people throughout the world are commemorating each year.

3. It is Pan Africa’s spirit that led to assisting African Liberation Movements of Southern Africa against colonialism.

4. Pan Africanist pioneers, including a few in the Diaspora such as Henry Sylvester Williams, Marcus Garvey, W.E. B. Du Bois, George Padmore, C.L.R. James, Frantz Fanon, Yosef Makonen, Malcom X, John Hendrik Clarke, Edward Wilmot Blyden, Binito Sylvania and Martin Delany, worked so hard to bring Africans to where they are today.

In fact, Marcus Garvey was the first to organise Africans globally on the principles of Black Consciousness and Pan Africanism.

The pioneers of liberation in Africa such as Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba, Julius Nyerere, Ahmed Ben Bella, Abdel Nasser, Modibo Keita, Ahmed Sekou Toure fought, the first stage of African liberation with distinction. That is political freedom.

The pioneers are now reminding this generation that there is much to be done.

True sons and daughters of Africa must tighten their belts for a more fierce war.

That is a war against neo-colonialism – the last stage of imperialism. The battle cry is now for economic liberation of Africa and her technological advancement.

A glaring example of the riches of Africa is the Democratic Republic of Congo, the country of Patrice Lumumba. Economic experts have pronounced that, when developed, Congo alone can feed and provide electricity for the whole of Africa. During the Second World War, the Nazi forces of Hitler over-ran Belgium.

The Belgians established their government-in-exile in London. How did Belgium manage financially? Well, Congo was their colony. Let this come from the horse’s mouth. Godding was the Colonial Secretary of the Belgian government-in- exile.

Godding boasted:
“During the War, the Congo was able to finance expenditure of the Belgian Government-in-exile in London, including the diplomatic service as well as the cost of armed forces in Europe and America. The Belgian gold reserve could be left intact.”

To this minute, Africa’s riches are fuelling the economies of imperialist countries. Africans remain the poorest people in the world amidst their own riches in their own African Continent.

As the late President Kwame Nkrumah put it:

“If Africa’s resources were used in her own development they would place Africa among the most modernised continents of the world. But Africa’s wealth is used for the development of overseas interests.”

Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe, the Pan-Africanist giant that was banned “this side of eternity”, as John B. Vorster put it.

Sobukwe had declared:

“The potential wealth of Africa in minerals, oil, hydro-electric power, and so on, is immense.” Sobukwe envisioned that by the end of the 20th century, “the standard of living of the African masses will undoubtedly have arisen dramatically.” Lo! This has not happened.

Perhaps, venerated Martyr Steve Biko was being prophetic of the African condition, when he said:

At the end of it all, the Blacks have nothing to lean on, nothing to cheer them up at the present moment, and very much to be afraid of the future.”

Whenever an African country is about to be liberated, imperialists have always divided liberation movements into radicals, extremists and militants and so-called moderates.

Colonialists have often called these so-called moderates to the “negotiating table” and offered them the flag and parliament – things Africans never made the fundamental objective of their liberation struggle.

From day one of the arrival of colonial invaders in Africa, the primary objective of Africans’ struggle was repossession of their land and its riches taken from Africans at gunpoint. Anyone one who doubts this historic fact must consult Kings Sekhukhene, Makado, Hintsa, Cetshwayo, Moshoeshoe, Makana and Bambatha, even Mzilikazi for that matter.

Land is what African people have died for, for over three hundred years of their existence, in their case in Azania.

A Kenyan political activist and former presidential candidate, Koigi Mamwere, captured this truism accurately in April 2000 when he proclaimed:

“Today, Europeans own almost all the land in the Americas, almost all the good land in Australia, New Zealand and Tasmania and most of the best land in African countries like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Kenya. To acquire this land outside Europe, Europeans did not use law, justice or money. They took the land and its riches with the gun….Europeans continue to own millions and millions of hectares of the best land in Africa….Whatever Robert Mugabe’s past mistakes, we must agree that on this one question of finally redistributing land to African people, he is 100% right…”

Regime change” is the new name coined by imperialists to continue with colonialism in a new form.

The political situation in “post independent” Africa demonstrates that any true leaders, who the imperialists perceive as a threat to their economic interests, are targeted through aggressive campaigns such as “regime change.” Some of these leaders were Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba, Chief Moshodi Abiola and recently Moammar Gaddafi.

So far, imperialists have found President Robert Mugabe a hard nut to crack. Two British Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and President George Bush of America have become despicable casualties in the battle field of “regime change” in Zimbabwe against President Robert Mugabe.

The imperialist European leaders have gone down the political drain, on the shores of Africa. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France who enthusiastically created a “New Libya” in the imperialist war for “regime change” ia already the political dustbin of history.

Mugabe is still standing. He is still in command. Africa needs more African leaders like President Mugabe. Otherwise, Africa’s authentic liberation will never arrive.

Under America’s Bill Clinton’s government, Chief Moshodi Abiola, a democratically elected Presidential candidate was prevented from taking power in Nigeria. Abiola was a staunch defender of Africa’s economic liberation. In 1993, he convened the First Pan-African Conference on Reparations.

Moshodi Abiola said:

“Our demand for reparations is based on the tripod of moral, historical and legal argument….Who knows what path Africa’s social development would have taken if great centres of African civilisation had not been destroyed in search of human cargo by Europeans? Who knows how our economics would have developed? It is international law which compels Nigeria to pay its debts to Western banks. It is international law that must now demand Western nations to pay us what they have owed us for nearly six centuries.”

There are two main things that Africans must do to advance Africa’s authentic liberation.

1. African rulers must exercise sovereignty over African lands and riches and use them for the benefit of their people. This is true national independence from colonialism and imperialism. Secondly, education is the key to the development of Africa, wise control of her raw materials and use of her human resources.

2. Quality education is the key to creating, owning and controlling Africa’s wealth and mentally decolonising her people’s captured minds.

Africa needs a diverse education that is tailored to the economic needs of her people. That education must be free for the poor. No African child must be without education, merely because of his or her condition of poverty. And these African children must be taught the true history of Africa, not the colonial history of Africa’s invaders that is full of perfidy to protect their colonial interests.

All African countries must prioritize the study of science, technology, economics and finance and of course International Law. Africa’s children must be equipped with skills and professions that arm their countries with technological capacity to process Africa’s raw materials and export them to the outside world as finished goods.

An African nation that exports its raw materials unprocessed will remain a perpetual pauper.

Where there is urgent need or desperate lack of high technology to process raw materials rapidly, African countries must exchange Africa’s raw materials for high technology; not for cash or foreign goods. Countries that enrich themselves from Africa’s raw materials are secretive and refuse to transfer technology to Africa. Knowledge is power.

Africans both on the continent and in the Diaspora must have the agenda for economic liberation of Africa and technological advancement.

Pan-Africanism is more relevant to the African world today than when it was formalised over one hundred and twenty years ago.

Africans may be Jamaicans, Tanzanians, Trinidadians, Kenyans, Zimbabweans, Angolans, Nigerians, Ghanaians, Basotho, Zambians, Namibians, South Africans, Azanians, African-Americans, Afro- Brazilians etc. But the train that will take all Africans to their destination and give them power to take their destiny into their hands is the Pan-African train.

It is not ethnicity, regionalism, sectarian politics or flirtation with the forces of neo-colonialism and imperialism. Forces that are determined to make Africans their perpetual slaves work together against Africans.

A divided Africa cannot defeat these plunderers and thieves.

Africans need to ignite their Pan-African Nationalism.

Pan-African Nationalism is the privilege of all Africans wherever they may be to love themselves and to give their way of life preference. Pan-African Nationalism views the personhood and humanity of the African people and of the people of African descent as equal to any other human beings on this planet.

Pan-African Nationalism rejects with contempt any philosophy that holds that Africa’s people are destined to exist in servitude to other human beings. Pan-African Nationalism does not look down on other members of the human race.

But it demands justice for African people. Africa’s riches belong to Africans. They are there for the benefit of the African people. They are not there to fuel foreign economies and perpetuate economic exploitation and poverty of African people.

The ultimate goal of African political struggle was to regain African lands and economic power, and rapidly advance Africa’s people technologically.

The question is not whether economic liberation for Africa is winnable. The critical question is whether African can afford not to win such a life and death struggle and therefore, continue to be the wretched of the earth in their own country and continent.

The economic freedom of Africa is winnable. But it starts with the recognition that the greatest damage colonialism did was on African minds. Africans must decolonise their minds.

Only mentally liberated Black people with a vision for their country and continent can win Africa’s authentic liberation for themselves and their children.

Any “secret ingredient to inspiring a team”?

Notesby.me did it again with an inspiring article posted on Sept 27  “How TEDxBeirut revealed the secret ingredient to inspire a team“:

“It’s Friday. The day before TEDxBeirut (a day-long conference in three sessions, involving 19 speakers). I’m driving to the venue. I’ve been barely sleeping an hour every night, for the past week. I’m exhausted, and have little energy left.

Today is the final rehearsal with all the speakers, performers, and production crew. It’s going to be a long and intense day. There’s so much that needs to be done. Too much for just one day.

As I’m driving, I think to myself: “I have no idea how I’m going to make it through the day. I’ll probably go in, and when anyone asks how I am, I’ll reply “Exhausted”!  That way, I’ll show them that I’ve been working my ass off. That’ll give me enough attention and energy to keep me going just a little bit more.”I pause, get my thoughts together, and continue (my line of thinking):

“Bad idea! We’re all exhausted. Why would I expect myself to be more exhausted than anyyone else? Why would I demand attention from everyone else? Bad idea!”

That’s when a smile forms on my face. “I’m OK” I think to myself. “Actually, I feel great! This is what we’ve all been working very hard for. It’s almost here. I’m excited!” And all of a sudden, everything changes.

I arrive at the venue. I’m all hyper and ecstatic. I go inside and start hugging and loving everyone. I can’t get the smile off my face. Everyone smiles back. I can see the light in their eyes. Little do I realize on that day, the effects of my attitude-change on everyone around me.

It’s Saturday. It’s the day of TEDxBeirut. It’s 7:00am. I’m driving to the venue. I’ve only slept for 1hr. I can’t keep my eyes open. I’m beyond exhaustion. It’s as if there are no thoughts in my head. I’m blank. I’m irritated. I don’t have nor the energy, nor the patience to deal with anything that comes my way. And suddenly, I remember the day before.

I remember the attitude change. And for the first time, I realize that by smiling and by being ecstatic yesterday, I was affecting the attitude of everyone around me. I think to myself: “I gotta do this. Everyone is exhausted. If I’m exhausted too, how will we make it through the day? How will we deal with all the problems that’ll arise? How will the audience feel? I gotta be ecstatic and exploding with energy!”

Suddenly, I feel a bust of energy! A smile forms on my face. This energy, along with the smile, both stay with me the whole day. All the way throughout the event. And this has a huge effect on everything. Of course, I wasn’t aware of that during the day.

At the end of the day, while driving back home, I remember Patrick telling me: “I don’t know why, I can’t help it but smile every time I see you.” I reply automatically without thinking: “Maybe it’s because I’ve been smiling all the time?” That’s when it hit me.

I get a zillion flashbacks from that same day. I remember all the instances when Patrick tells me how I’m inspiring. The instance that Maya tells me how she can feel my energy, and how different that is from others. The instance that Chawki tells me how inspiring I am. All the instances that I’ve spoken to team members, and all of a sudden their eyes spark. All the instances that I’ve briefed a team member who has slept less that I did, and see them jump into action with excitement beyond this world.

That instance, after all those flashbacks, I finally understand what inspiring a team is all about. I’ve been trying to inspire different teams, within and outside of TEDxBeirut for years now. I’ve failed every single time. And now, on the last day of TEDxBeirut, I finally get it.

Inspiring a team isn’t just about being ecstatic, energetic, and passionate. Yes, all these are vital. Yet, a secret ingredient is missing.

To inspire, you have to be under the same, or worst conditions yourself. Please, read this line again.

During the day of TEDxBeirut, I finally managed to inspire, not just because I was full of energy. It’s because I was as tired and as un-slept as everyone else. Yet, I managed to show everyone that even though we’re all exhausted, we can still be full of energy. We can still have a constant and contagious smile. We can still be ecstatic. And when we’re all like this, the crowd can’t help but get infected with this blissful energy.

I’ve come to learn that inspiring a team might just be this simple and reproducible. To inspire a team to act in a certain way, act yourself in that certain way. And as long as you’re under the same, or worst circumstances than the rest of your team, they’ll get inspired.

Martin Luther King was as black and as mistreated as his community. Gandhi was under worst conditions than his community. And they both inspired big time.

On Friday, that day before TEDxBeirut, I had never imagined that my change of attitude will have such a deep impact. I thank everyone single one of you. You inspired me to inspire.” End of quote.

You are likely to miss the essential idea in that post and think: “Keep smiling to inspire the team” is the secret ingredient.  Smiling is the catalyst, the best catalyst to inspiring, but “How can you keep a genuine smile if the entire team does not believe that you worked harder than anyone else?”

One of the speaker on TEDxBeirut (Hala Fayad) said: “To be a successful entrepreneur you have got to slave harder than anyone in team.  Ego is not useful in any endeavor you undertake…” (I assume that Hala got down on her knees and rubbed the floor and participated in the daily chores, as any slave is asked to do. Otherwise, success was pure luck, regardless of all the energy invested in the business and opportunities that were taken advantage of…)

In general, Gandhi is an excellent example in that line of thinking.  But Martin Luther King ? Simply because he was black and obviously mistreated and put in prison several times?  Malcom X and many other Black leaders in the US worked far harder than Martin Luther King  and they were mistreated harsher, not just by the white community, but amid their own black communities.

Note:  TEDxBeirut was a huge success in many ways, particularly in this awfully limited society and State of Lebanon. The slogan of TEDxBeirut was “From limitation to inspiration”.  That motto applied perfectly to the organizers of TEDxBeirut, though not to most of the speakers. I am preparing an article titled “Mostly a hoax: “From limitation to inspiration” slogan of TEDxBeirut”

“How do you feel?” (Jan. 30, 2010)

            A friend asked me one of his frequently mindless questions: “How do you feel?”  I said “I am feeling my shit sexy.” Usually, I say what I mean.  After my glamorous bowel movement, I had lunch and then had a long walk, and then I read and wrote and I still felt the effects of my bowel movement.  Three hours later, I am feeling this lovely pain in my guts; a sensation that I had emptied a huge load with the accompanying pressures on my mind. I had siesta and felt this sexy pain. Satisfying bowel movement is the greatest achievement among my daily tasks.

            My friend was appalled by my incomprehensible reply and said: “I was under the impression that you are totally broke to indulge in luxury.”  I like to invent new expressions and terminologies in English: I was not born and raised in an authentic English speaking country.  I was saved from memorizing and regurgitating boring idioms; I am not up-to-date on the latest slangs.  I have got to do with the classics; more so that I was never in linguistics, anthropology, or ethnology fields of study.

            It was during one of these sensational feelings that Barak Obama was elected President.  You might heave a sigh of dejection but it is not just a coincidence. I don’t like certified crazy Bush Junior, that President who never set foot on “foreign soils” before he was elected also “President”, though he enjoyed the same moments of sensation. If you do the probability math you might realize that the odds are actually pretty high for coincidence of shitting sensations and catastrophic events.  I can confirm that the odds were a certainty that Martin Luther King and Malcom X would be assassinated.

            What is this?  When I am ecstatic I cannot think; when I am morose I cannot think. I have to induce that I think when I am in a lukewarm temperament. Thus, “Not Thinking” and extreme mood zones are highly correlated; thinking and tasteless moods are thus pretty much independent: it is a firm deductive result; you might think, you might not think (same different), what you are thinking do not make sense, or your thinking can be revolutionary verging to lunacy.

            Just to tell you that physical exigency is a fundamental factor to your mental output. I sometimes wonder at critics psychoanalyzing authors by their books.  If critics are honest then they should comprehend a book was mostly “excreted” during lukewarm mood periods; thus, psychoanalysis is not valid in these cases: the author should be observed in “a not thinking” instances. Critics believe that authors basically lie down on comfortable coach, talk to themselves and record their babbling; critics get in the skin of relaxed a author who is figuring out that audiences have sworn the oath of confidentiality as his mental shrink.  I don’t usually go off on tangents but it feels good.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,428,671 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 776 other followers

%d bloggers like this: