EMBRACE OF HATE: Amanda Marcotte explains The Others!


Part 4—"Blatant racism" decried:
Near the end of last Friday's op-ed column, Anna Fels described the type of world which gets created by "people who hate."

In our view, there's a lot to ponder in her portrait. The professor says, correctly we think, that such conduct is "on the rise:"
FELS (4/14/17): The point is to hurt and humiliate. Those who hate want to make the objects of their hate suffer as they have. It is this that makes the attacks so personal and lends them their crude, violent and often sexual nature. The intent is not to challenge opposing beliefs but to destroy those who hold them.


People who hate can blame others for their losses, reducing doubts about their own inadequacies.

Hate converts a sense of helplessness into one of action. It can even be the impetus for the formation of new communities in which people share grievances and plans for retribution, relieving their sense of isolation or powerlessness. As a consequence, though, there’s a loss of empathy, and beliefs become simplified and rigid.

All this may help to explain why hate and its retributive punishments are on the rise. In a way, hate functions like a Geiger counter, signaling where there are serious disruptions of the social fabric or where cultural beliefs are under the most stress—whether it be from a new awareness of inequality, diversity or the radical redefining of gender.
Fels' portrait is well worth considering. First, though, let's consider two weaknesses in that passage.

Fels says her portrait "may help to explain why hate and its retributive punishments are on the rise." We don't know why she says that. We see Fels make no attempt to explain why political hate would be more attractive now than at some earlier point.

That strikes us as an obvious weakness in Fels' passage. For a second weakness, consider her examples of the places where "cultural beliefs are under the most stress," thus giving rise to political hate.

According to Fels, cultural beliefs are under the most stress in three areas. Cultural beliefs are being put under most stress by "a new awareness of inequality," by "diversity" and by "the radical redefining of gender."

Presumably, culturally beliefs are being put under stress in all three ways. But let's note an obvious point: in all three instances, Fels describes types of cultural stress which are being felt "on the right."

In all three instances, Fels thereby suggests that political hate is on the rise among Those People, the conservative folk Over There. She imagines no ways in which political hate might be on the rise among Us, the intelligent, well-meaning, wonderfully nuanced liberal folk Over Here.

Does this reflect a "bias" on Fels' part? It's hard to answer such questions. For today, let's restrict oursleves to a thought experiment, in which we ask such questions as these:

Is it possible that political hate is on the rise Over Here? Is it possible that we liberals have been identifying "objects of hate" against whom we launch "crude attacks?"

Is it possible that we've been involved in "the formation of new communities" in which we "share grievances" about our objects of hate? In which we experience "a loss of empathy" for such targets? In which our beliefes "become simplified and rigid?" In which we get to blame The Others for our political losses?

Could that be happening Over Here? Consider yesterday's piece by Amanda Marcotte at the new and improved Salon.

Marcotte's piece appeared beneath a punishing headline. Even as it cited a "new analysis," it told a tribally pleasing story—a story we liberals get served every day:

"New election analysis: Yes, it really was blatant racism that gave us President Donald Trump"

It wasn't just racism which gave us President Trump. It was blatant racism, the pleasing Salon headline said.

Briefly, let's be fair. Marcotte never refers to blatant racism in her actual text. We'll assume the extra word was added by an editor at the new Salon, making Marcotte's essay more "simplified" and more "crude."

That said, it would be hard to simplify Marcotte's text more than Marcotte did. And since everyone who writes for Salon will know that its headlines are tricked up this way, we'll have to grant Marcotte an authorship share in the exciting headline which sat atop her text.

That said, let's turn to that text-in-itself. Is it true? Did "blatant racism" give us President Donald J. Trump in some definable way? To what extent can racism be blamed for his status at all?

Asking Marcotte to address such questions is a bit like asking Donald J. Trump to analyze the Bolshoi Ballet. At one time, Marcotte specialized in issues involving gender. In the past few years, she has begun to wrote about pure politics.

Her work tends to be extremely poor. Consider the way she starts this latest pleasing piece:
MARCOTTE (4/19/17): It’s worth remembering, particularly when the Hillary Clinton recrimination news cycle is in full swing, that Donald Trump is president today because of a margin of fewer than 80,000 votes spread across three states.

“The most important states, though, were Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin,”
Philip Bump in The Washington Post wrote in December. “Trump won those states by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively—and by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes.”

Those three states, however, had been comfortably won by Democrat Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012. Much of the recent shift, however tiny, was due to slightly more white working-class voters voting Republican than before. This, in turn, has prompted an ugly and ongoing fight between two progressive factions: those who believe those voters were primarily motivated by a sense of economic insecurity and people who think the shift occurred because racist appeals are prompting more white people to vote for Republicans.
As is often the case with Marcotte's work, she starts with a bit of puzzling logic. She says, correctly, that Obama won the three midwestern states in question by "comfortable" margins in 2012. She then says that Clinton's loss of these three states was occasioned by a "tiny shift" in votes, "due to slightly more white working-class voters voting Republican."

As almost anyone can see, those conjoined claims don't exactly seem to make sense. It's true that Candidate Clinton lost those three states by narrow margins. (She lost Ohio by 8.1 points.)

But though the margins were tiny, the shifts in votes were not, given the size of Obama's wins in 2012. Here's the breakdown on Michigan in those two elections:
Michigan 2012:
Obama 2,564,569 (54.2 percent)
Romney 2,115,256 (44.7 percent)

Obama won by 9.50 points
(4.731 million votes cast)

Michigan 2016:
Trump 2,279,543 (47.5 percent)
Clinton 2,268,839 (47.3 percent)

Clinton lost by 0.2 points
(4.799 million votes cast)
Where Obama won by almost ten points, Clinton narrowly lost. This involved substantial shifts in votes, whatever the explanation for those shifts may be.

As with Michigan, so too with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Candidate Clinton lost those states by narrow margins, but she lost a lot of votes as compared to Obama's comfortable wins four years before. Meanwhile, here's how Ohio went down:
Ohio 2012 versus Ohio 2016:
Obama 2012: 2,827,709 (50.7 percent)
Clinton 2016: 2,394,164 (43.6 percent)
Obama won Ohio by 3.0 points in 2012. Four years later, Clinton lost the state by 8.1 points.

Candidate Clinton lost a lot of votes in these midwestern states in 2016 as compared to Candidate Obama in 2012. This leads us to our second question: how did those votes get lost?

This is where the "blatant racism" theory comes in. The "new analysis" to which Marcotte refers belongs to Sean McElwee, a scrub-faced recent college grad (Kings College, 2013) who is becoming the liberal world's go-to guy for "blatant racism" analyses.

For ourselves, we would be slow to assume the competence of McElwee's analyses. That said, here's how he analyzed the vote changes in these decisive states, at least according to Marcotte:
MARCOTTE: For people who pay close attention to politics, McElwee argued, it’s been clear for decades that Democrats have been more progressive than Republicans on the issue of racial justice. But for the less informed voters, the “election of a black president, the reaction to that and then the Trump campaign” made race and racism more salient as electoral issues than they have been in recent political memory. The result is that people with racist attitudes are rapidly shifting toward becoming Republicans, and people with more progressive views on race are flocking to the Democrats.

This, in turn, helps explain the small number of voters who voted for Obama once and maybe even twice but then turned to Trump. They may have initially perceived Obama to be “post-racial” candidate whose color was not important. But after years of racist vitriol aimed at Obama, as well as the increase in racial justice movements like Black Lives Matter, those voters have turned to more racialized thinking and flocked to Trump. The constant complaining of Trump supporters about the pernicious influence of “political correctness” also suggests this reading.
Inevitably, we're told that the decisive changes in votes came from "less informed voters." According to Marcotte's account, McElwee attributes the changed votes of these dunderheads to "race and racism," to their "more racialized [current] thinking."

Please note the apparent oddness of this one-size-fits-all analysis:

In 2012, the Democratic candidate was socially defined as "black." In 2016, the Democratic candidate was socially defined as "white." Why did the white candidate get substantially fewer votes than the black candidate had? Because of race and racism—indeed, because of blatant racism—we are now being told!

On its face, that analysis doesn't quite seem to make sense. Remembering that this is Marcotte's account of McElwee's position, let's consider the factors which are said to have accounted for the switches in votes:
Factors causing Clinton to lose votes in 2016, as compared to Obama in 2012:
1) The election of a black president
2) These voters' reaction to the election of this black president
3) The Trump campaign, approval of which seems to be read as racism, no explanation required
Does this analysis make sense? Remember, that "election of a black president" actually happened in 2008. We're now told that it explains the switch of votes away from a white Democratic candidate in 2016.

We're even told that the election of that black president, and the reaction to it, explains the anti-Clinton votes of people who voted for the black president in 2012! Does this highly simplistic theory actually make good sense?

Has Marcotte discovered that all those votes were lost because of "blatant racism?" Has she discovered that the white candidate did substantially worse than the previous black candidate due to that "blatant" cause?

Forgive us for making an unpleasant suggestion. Forgive us for suggesting that this may be the "crude" and "simplified" way we humans tend to reason when we launch campaigns against objects of hate.

Is Marcote's explanation "crudely simplified?" Consider all the possible reasons for Candidate Clinton's loss of votes she doesn't even seem to consider:
Possible factors unmentioned by Marcotte:
1) The fact that Clinton ran a lousy campaign
2) Twenty-five years of demonization aimed at Clinton, both by the "right-wing noise machine" and by the upper-end mainstream press
3) The intervention of James B. Comey (starting in July 2016, not just in October)
4) The intervention of Vladimir Putin
5) The ridiculous assurances of the Professor Wangs and their pundit enablers (i.e., the claim that Candidate Clinton couldn't possibly lose)
6) The possible role of sexism/misogyny!
Amazing, isn't it? Marcotte is so eager to push the "blatant racism" line that she doesn't even mention the possibility that the female candidate did worse than the previous male candidate because of sexism/misogyny, the topic she rode in on.

(We're instructed in Marcotte's opening sentence that we mustn't even consider the "Clinton ran a lousy campaign" explanation. See text above. You're looking at pure propaganda.)

Let's return to Professor Fels' presentation. Is it possible that Marcotte's piece can be seen as an example of the way political hate is "on the rise" in this country? Can it be seen as an example of the way political groups offer "crude" and "simplified" story-lines to attack the people they loathe?

Ever since November, this crude attack about "blatant racism" has been peddled wherever liberal story-lines are sold. Is it possible that this simplified account represents an attempt by our own liberal tribe to "blame others for [our] losses, reducing doubts about [our] own inadequacies?"

Could it be that this rather crude story-line "converts a sense of helplessness into one of action"—that it "can even be the impetus for the formation of new communities in which people share grievances and plans for retribution?" Is it even possible that this crude story about "blatant racism" involves our tribe is a "loss of empathy" for the people we're sliming in such crude, reductionist ways?

We'd say that all those things are possible—indeed, that they're happening every day. This helps explain why we swallow the idea that the white candidate underperformed as compared to the black candidate because of the "blatant racism" found Over There among The Others. Full and complete freaking stop!

In a fairly typical way, Fels could only see hate on the rise Over There, on the right. That said, we liberals are human too—human, if only just barely.

Tomorrow: The loss of empathy, combined with the rise of our own music men


  1. It's Jungian shadow projection. "In shadow projecting, we split-off from and try to get rid of a part of ourselves, which is a self-mutilation that is actually an act of violence. In the act of shadow projecting, we disassociate from a part of ourselves and “split” (in two), turning away in revulsion from and severing our association with our darker half, as if we have never met it before in our entire life. ***We throw our own darkness outside of ourselves and see it as if it exists only in others.*** We then react violently when we encounter an embodied reflection of our shadow in the outer world, wanting to destroy it, as it reminds us of something dark within ourselves that we’d rather have nothing to do with."

    The hate is an interior issue that must be dealt with individually, recognizing, accepting and even celebrating the darkness within us.

  2. To respond to Bob's question about whether it makes sense to claim racism as a cause of Clinton doing worse than Obama - one way to make that argument is that Trump ran a campaign that was overtly racist in ways that haven't been seen since George Wallace. So, voters who selected Obama in 2008 and 2012 when "race" really wasn't an explicit issue voted for Trump in 2016 when race was a big issue.

    I don't know if this is really the reason - as Bob often reminds us, there are millions of people who have their own unique reasons for voting. But this explanation at least is one way that Clinton's loss can be attributed, at least in part, to racism.

    1. It is hard to ignore that Trump's platform seemed to consist largely of undoing Obama's accomplishments. Trump's overt appeal to racism is also indisputable. So why is Marcotte chastised for pointing that out? I seriously doubt she said race was the only factor.

      Analysts do mot attribute Clinton's loss to running a lousy campaign. Consensus is that her campaign was fine. This is Somerby's negative attitude revealing itself.

      People become Democrats because of what the party represents, so if less racist people self-select, of course the racism will be located in the other party. No bias involved in seeing that.

    2. You may be right, but (a) there's nothing "blatant" or obvious about that conclusion, and (b) the article doesn't consider any alternate explanations.

      I think Bob is on the money with the campaign of hatred aimed at Clinton since 93. I recall clearly how the GOP went into a frenzy when Bill tasked her with drawing up health care reform. They've never moved away from that reaction, and in the intervening years, lazy thinkers (not just journalists) have fallen for the "when there's smoke, there's fire" school of thought.

  3. Marcotte seems to be saying that a bunch of racists voted for Obama but not for Hillary. This makes no sense.

    1. She says 2012 was not a referendum on race but 2016 was. Trump made it one.

    2. Yes, that's what she says, but does that make any sense? If you're a racist, you will vote against a black candidate, whether or not you're told that the election is a "referendum on race".

      Anyhow, I don't recall "referendum on race" being an important par of Hillary's campaign. I remember electing the first woman President and a bunch ad hominems against Trump (many of which were valid criticisms.) Lots of Democrats claimed Trump was campaigning on a platform of racism, but that's not the case. On the contrary, he campaigned on improving the lives of inner city blacks.

    3. Despite all of this, Hillary was beating Trump by several points until Comey made his statement. That gave Trump the election. Hillary didn't run a bad campaign and the Republican attacks on her were not beating her. It was Comey. The numbers are clear on that.

      The real question is not how Clinton lost -- the sabotage of her campaign was both real and obvious. The only question is how deeply Trump was involved.

      The remaining issue is why anyone would vote for Trump. I think race is an important part of that answer. Marcotte is not claiming it is the only reason. Somerby likes to pretend she is, for his own reasons. Marcotte has never been an idiot, so why is Somerby trying to portray her as one?

      I am no longer inclined to consider him just a curmudgeon. It wouldn't surprise me if he were on (1) Bernie's payroll, (2) Putin's payroll (assuming it is any different than Bernie's these days), the RNC's payroll (assuming it too has any independence of action).

      Somerby is not behaving like any kind of Democrat I recognize from my lengthy involvement with the party and in politics. Any credibility he has earned from his previous analyses is gone. I disagree strongly with his current worldview and his rants make me angry. He is pretending to be something he clearly isn't and that is destructive in a world of fake news and dissembling.

    4. This was intended as a response to an earlier comment and doesn't belong here. Comments don't work well here and I am majorly tired of the Recaptcha. Another reason to leave, I suppose.

    5. On the contrary, he campaigned on improving the lives of inner city blacks

      Comrade, your trolling is getting hilarious. Just go away, don't you have some minority votes to suppress somewhere? Maybe do a little work on the WALL?

    6. There's been a lot of people asking, "What can Trump do to make his past voters turn on him?"

      Trump saying, "My Presidency is about helping black people." should do the trick.

  4. The racism of Trump's Birtherism was blatant and obvious, as was his response to the Central Park Five Case, the latter Bob, shamefully, has never even written about. But on this sad day, Bob may be sipping mofo Iced Tea with his old sex criminal pal.

    1. Greg -- I've never understood why birtherism = racism. I think birtherism was stupid and bogus. But, a 1991 literary promotional booklet produced by Obama's literary agency Acton & Dystel identified Barack Obama as having been born in Kenya. So, there were some feeble grounds for the suspicion.

      Wa it racism when the NY Times questioned John McCain's elegibility, because he was born in the Canal Zone (to military parents.) I don't think. It was just hard-nosed, ugly politics.

      Greg, I would seriously ask you to explain why birtherism constituted racism.

    2. I'm not Greg, but it's wrong to equate questions about the Constitutional qualifications for President of someone born in the Canal Zone (which McCain was) with the conspiratorial questions about Obama. Maybe the promotional booklet was sufficient to bring up the issue briefly. But when it became a years-long issue I think it's fair to assume that there was something else going on, and I think that it's fair to conclude that the "something else" was an attempt to suggest that Obama was less than American. Call it what you want, but racism sounds right to me.

    3. And don't forget about Trump hiring the Russian women to defile the bed upon which Obama had slept during his visit to Moscow. That stinks of racism.

    4. Anon - I'm afraid the story of defiling the bed stinks only of gullibility and wishful thinking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This extraordinary claim had almost no evidence, merely an assertion from some anonymous source.

    5. Aside from the fact the story has been repeated by one of Trump's team, which is how intelligence agents heard it. The ladies are long gone but it is entirely consistent with Trump's proven behavior, sadly.

    6. Comrade DinC, you're so stupid you don't even know how to use the expression. This isn't an extraordinary claim. An extraordinary claim would be learning that pussygrabber defended the honor of underage girls by preventing a lecherous 60something year old pervert from entering their changing room while they were naked. On the other hand , the pussygrabbing pervert you defend was actually bragging to Howard Stern about abusing his position and power to do that very same perverted disgusting act.

      So go fuck yourself you warped little pervert worshipping troll. The shit stain you defend is happy to have loyal supporters like you.

    7. OMFG!
      A conservative is lecturing anyone(!) about gullibility has to be the most tone-deaf thing on the internet in a decade.

    8. One recurrent theme of this blog has been to show how easy and pleasurable it is to throw around accusations of racism yet how hard it is to prove and more importantly, how ineffective it is politically. It is interesting that we are asked to believe that racism is the reason the white candidate lost the election that the black candidate previously won twice.

    9. That is not what is being asked. When one candidate runs an explicitly non-racial campaign that focuses on the issues and another dog-whistles white racism at every opportunity, of course the candidate who makes his appeal to racism is making race an issue in the campaign.

      The argument is that an appeal to white racism is the reason the WHITE candidate WON the election, but the reason the black candidate won twice was that he DID NOT make race an issue, but instead downplayed race. He would not have won if he had made his race (e.g., his being black) an issue during the campaign.

      This is not rocket science. Trump may have emphasized race, in part, because Hillary was running on Obama's record. It was a way to neutralize that asset.

      It is not hard to understand why Trump ran on race. It is harder to understand why Trump voters supported him if race did not have any appeal to them. And harder yet to explain the overt race-related actions of his supporters at his rallies where he gave tacit approval to let it all hang out, racially speaking (the SPLC has documented over 900 attacks in the 10 days following the election).

    10. I don't know a single Trump voter who voted for Obama. NOT. A. SINGLE. ONE.

  5. Drum today asks why Bernie doesn't support Ossoff. He apparently isn't the right kind of progressive and Bernie is not any kind of Democratic so he isn't stumping to change the balance in congress.

    Somerby seems to be trying to make us all into Bernie type progressives and wean us from traditional democrat issues, like civil rights.

    Or maybe he is just kicking down at his favorite targets: (1) professors, (elite schools like Princeton, (3) women. Can't call Marcotte a mainstream journalist. He does seem to like criticizing Hillary -- more evident now that others are no longer doing so. Somerby is behaving like an ass these days.

  6. For 2016 (as not for 2008 or 2012), Wisconsin's Voter-ID Law was in effect, and was projected by a US circuit judge to block 300,000 legal registered voters — “disproportionately African-American and Latino voters” — where Trump’s margin of victory was just 22,000.

    Thanks to the 2013 Shelby decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, the GOP was able to pull stunts like this around the country, and boasted about it. So HRC was not running under the same conditions as BHO.

  7. Michigan 2012:
    Obama 2,564,569 (54.2 percent)
    Romney 2,115,256 (44.7 percent)

    Obama won by 9.50 points
    (4.731 million votes cast)

    Michigan 2016:
    Trump 2,279,543 (47.5 percent)
    Clinton 2,268,839 (47.3 percent)

    Clinton lost by 0.2 points
    (4.799 million votes cast)

    The unemployment rate in MI was 14.9%

    By election time in 2016 the unemployment rate had been reduced by nearly 10%.

    Clearly these people were pissed at the Democrats for ignoring their economic anxiety.

    By the way, Mr. Somerby, the poor put upon AG Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III made a statement today that should demand immediate firing. I'm sure you'll be covering the case closely.

  8. This is why Clinton lost:


  9. Something left out of the Michigan numbers.

    Stein - 21,897
    Johnson - 7,797
    others - less than 36,000

    remember Clinton lost Michigan by less than 11,000 votes.

    Johnson - 172,136 (165,000 more than 2012)
    Stein - 51,463 (30,000 more than 2012)
    others - 52,000 (16,000 more than 2012)

    Those extra votes for Stein and Johnson clearly could have made the difference. Where did they come from? My hypothesis is that they were Bern victims (supporters of Bernie) who believed two things.

    1. That Clinton stole the nomination from Bernie
    2. that Clinton was guaranteed to win

    Thus for some 100,000 Michigan voters (and similar stories at play in Wisconsin (where the Johnson/Stein combo got 136,000 votes, about 100,000 more than in 2012) and Pennsylvania (where Johnson got 146,000 votes, almost 100,000 more than in 2012)) they were 1) pissed off enough to not vote for Clinton and 2) assured that their protest vote was not gonna put Trump in the White House.

    Kind of a redux of 2000 when Nader campaigned to put Bush in the White House.

  10. Hey guys, I'm so excited of getting my husband back after he left me and our 3 kids for another woman.
    After 2 years of marriage, me and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me and moved to California to be with another woman.
    i felt my life was over and my kids thought they would never see their father again.
    i tried to be strong just for the kids but i could not control the pains that torments my heart, my heart was filled with sorrows and pains because i was really in love with my husband.
    Every day and night i think of him and always wish he would come back to me, I was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a (Love spell) for me.
    28 hours later, my husband really called me and told me that he miss me and the kids so much, So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and the kids. Then from that day,our Marriage was now stronger than how it were before,
    All thanks to Dr Unity. he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the internet that Dr Unity real and powerful spell caster who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble,
    if you are here and you need your Ex back or your husband moved to another woman, do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster now.
    Here’s his contact: Email him at: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com ,you can also call him or add him on Whats-app: +2348071622464 ,his website:http://unityspelltemple.yolasite.com . Jessica, 26 years, Texas, USA.

  11. In a rational world Marcotte should have professionally been toast ten years ago when she pronounced the Duke lacrosse players guilty all over again after they had been unambiguously cleared by photographic and DNA evidence. But this is not a rational world.

    Somewhere out there is an asteroid with our name on it. I hope the center comes down on Marcotte's Brooklyn apartment before thankfully killing us all.

    Human extinction 2020.

  12. Dr. T,
    Now you're getting somewhere. I know many of the progressive Democrats in my county. They started out enthusiastically supporting Bernie. That quickly morphed into trashing Hillary, often with the same arguments employed by Republicans. "It's the trust issue!" WTF does that mean? Does it mean don't vote for her because she is not trustworthy? Or does it mean she can't win because too many voters mistrust her?
    I warned them to stop attackIng Clinton because she had been anointed by the DNC, and would be the Democratic candidate. A few did, but I know many refused to vote for Clinton, victims of their own propaganda.
    I assume this happened nationwide, because I saw it on Facebook, as well.

    It is a very hard situation when playing the lottery and never won, or keep winning low fund not up to 100 bucks, i have been a victim of such a tough life, the biggest fund i have ever won was 100 bucks, and i have been playing lottery for almost 12 years now, things suddenly change the moment i came across a secret online, a testimony of a spell caster called dr emu, who help people in any type of lottery numbers, i was not easily convinced, but i decided to give try, now i am a proud lottery winner with the help of dr emu, i won $1,000.0000.00 and i am making this known to every one out there who have been trying all day to win the lottery, believe me this is the only way to win the lottery.

    Contact him on email Emutemple@gmail.com
    What's app +2347012841542
    Website Https://emutemple.wordpress.com/