THE OTHERIZATION RULES: Being human, Onion see Others!


Older blond woman shot down: As you may recall, we made the award-winning declaration several years ago.

"It's all anthropology now," we skillfully said. What we meant was this:

It no longer made a lot of sense to imagine a good outcome to our society's troubles. All that was left was the attempt to understand the basic elements of human wiring which were in the process of bringing our society down.

Otherization is one of those basic impulses. Enter Rebecca Onion at Slate. 

Also, enter Professor Emily J. M. Knox (Illinois/Champaign), with whom Onion has conducted a highly instructive non-instructive interview for Slate.

Right away, let it be said that Onion isn't silly, stupid, crazy, dumb or even tribally nutty. She works from the saner, sounder, deeper end of the mainstream press corps pool.

That said, we humans want the things we want, and one thing we want is Others. In the Oscar-nominated film, The Sixth Sense, a little boy could see dead people. Especially at times of tribal war, we humans are built to see Others.

According to experts, human beings are wired to invent, and then to see, such beings. That explains the way Onion's interview feature started at Slate.

Headline included, Onion started like this:

The Woman Who Wanted Beloved Banned From Schools Is Right About One Thing

The campaign ad for Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin features an older blond woman, wringing her hands and telling a story about a book that her son had to read for school—one that was so upsetting, so explicit, that her “heart sunk” to think of it. Internet sleuths didn’t have to look far to find out that the woman was Laura Murphy, a Fairfax County conservative activist; the son is Blake Murphy, who’s now 27 and works for the National Republican Congressional Committee; the traumatizing reading was done almost a decade ago; and the explicit book was Toni Morrison’s much-decorated masterpiece, Beloved.

I called Emily J. M. Knox, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s School of Information Sciences, and asked her to explain Beloved’s place in the history of book-banning and book-challenging in American schools. Knox, the author of Book Banning in 21st-Century America and the editor of Trigger Warnings: History, Theory, Context, explained that Murphy’s not wrong about one thing: Beloved is unusually graphic—and this can help us understand the book’s particular power.

According to the headline, readers would be learning about a woman "who wanted Beloved banned from schools." Reading Onion's introduction, you can quickly see how the headline writer could have received that impression.

You can also see the ridicule we humans will typically wring down on the heads of the people we construe and depict as Others. This tribally pleasing ridicule is a key part of the deeply inhuman human practice known as otherization.

For the record, the woman in question isn't just any woman—she's an "older blond woman." The woman's name is Laura Murphy. No effort is made to hide the ridicule aimed at her older blond head.

As the otherization begins, this older woman is "wringing her hands" about the "traumatizing reading" which was visited upon her son almost a decade ago. The mocking tone is obvious. Soon, the embellishments and the irrelevant factual statements start.

Briefly, let's be fair! Onion never explicitly says that Murphy was trying to "ban" the book in question. That said, Knox quickly seems to suggest as much, and Onion doesn't challenge or correct her. 

(Knox: "One stance I take with people who try to ban books is that they’re not wrong, in one sense.")

In fairness, Onion never makes the explicit claim that Murphy was trying to ban a book. Throughout the interview, she and Knox refer instead to "challengers"—to people who have who have "challenged" books, leaving readers to puzzle out what that locution might mean.

Still, readers of Slate are instantly pleasured, right in the headline, with the claim that Murphy was trying to "ban" Beloved—and it's easy to see where the headline writer may have received that idea.

Embellishment is powerful; irrelevant information is fun. Right there in her introduction, Onion pleasures "us the liberals" with several of the widely-recited irrelevant facts we mentioned in discussing this matter last week.

In this lengthy interview feature, Onion never tries to define the actual proposal Murphy actually made. She never tries to explain the subsequent history, which involved Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe vetoing a proposal which had been passed by the Virginia legislature.

We aren't informed about such actual piffle. Instead, we're quickly offered irrelevant information designed to let us see Murphy as an Other. 

Those instant irrelevant facts (and claims) would be these:

Murphy is a conservative activist: We're instantly told that the older blond woman is "a conservative activist." To the extent that that statement is true, a question arises: So what? 

The fact that a proposal is advanced by an activist doesn't speak to the possible merit of the proposal. In Murphy's case, to the extent that she actually is "an activist," she became one in the course of pursuing this matter, back when her son was in high school. 

Murphy's son now works for the National Republican Congressional Committee: We're told that the son of the older blond woman now works for the National Republican Congressional Committee. 

This tells us nothing about the possible merits of Murphy's proposal, whatever it actually was.  In a rational world, this fact would be completely obvious, even to people like Us.

The book in question is a much-decorated masterpiece: We're told that Beloved, the novel in question, is "a much-decorated masterpiece." Even if we totally accept that statement on face, its relevance isn't clear.

Beloved did win the Pulitzer Prize for literature. Many people do regard it as a masterpiece, though we don't know if everyone does.

That said, the older blond woman never said different, and such facts don't speak to the actual question at hand when she made her actual proposal a decade ago, whatever it actually was. 

What is, or what was, the question at hand? Onion never explains. Slate readers aren't asked to know such things. Instead, they're offered the otherization of an "older blond woman" who has been seen wringing her hands and who wanted to "ban a book."

According to top credentialed anthropologists, the human impulse toward otherization is bred very deep in the bone. We humans are strongly inclined to "kill the pig" at times of heightened tribal conflict, or so these famous top experts have all despondently said.

According to these scholars, we humans are strongly inclined to put both ass cheeks on the scales as we sift the information and the claims our fellow tribals will hear. Onion tends to work near the top of the mainstream journalist pile, but she engages in this type of conduct throughout her interview with the professor, as she otherizes the older blond woman who has been wringing her hands.

This process of otherizations takes an array of forms. It's directly tied to the type of clownish performance turned in last Friday night by Rachel Maddow—the type of performance in which tribals are encouraged to assume the accuracy of everything their fellow tribals have said.

(No one but Others ever dissemble. No one but Others could ever turn out to be wrong. Has someone suggested that our side is wrong? If so, that will be disappeared.)

At present, this process is playing out everywhere, within our own highly moral blue tribe and also within the red. We'll continue with Onion's feature tomorrow, but it's all anthropology now!

Tomorrow: "Murphy’s not wrong about one thing!"


  1. Thanks for documenting liberal atrocities, dear Bob.

    Well written, for the most part.

    However, we have to disagree with the following statement: "We humans are strongly inclined to "kill the pig" at times of heightened tribal conflict..."

    You liberals are strongly inclined to "kill the pig". We ordinary humyns aren't inclined to do any such things.

    1. Somerby taught young kids about the age of those depicted in Lord of the Flies (the book where the pig is killed). You might think he would defend youth against the libels that they will degenerate into uncivilized mayhem without adult supervision.

      Somerby uses "kill the pig" to pretend that liberals are uncivilized instead, pretending that humanity rests only with conservatives, despite the fact that domestic violence and insurrection and even calls for secession are only coming from one side, the right.

  2. Somerby wishes to gaslight us into believing that Republicans are not trying to ban books, but what about this:

    1. TDH is talking about one instance, where there wasn't a demand that the book be banned, only that parents have a say on what books their kids are assigned, and Beloved apparently dd have some grisly passages. Personally, I'm not not sympathetic to the mother in question, but you are (per usual) distorting what TDH says - he doesn't say that "Republicans are not trying to ban books."

    2. Thanks, saved me the time.

    3. Somerby is saying that the reporter got it wrong about Murphy's desire to ban the book and that the Professor was implying that she was seeking to ban it. When Somerby says this was untrue, he IS saying that conservatives are not trying to ban Beloved.

    4. Corby - Omitting quantifiers leads to fuzzy thinking. Somerby is saying that This Particular conservative was not trying to ban This Particular book on This Particular occasion.

      Also, we should be careful about the word "ban". Is asking that a book not be included in the a syllabus the same as banning it? I don't think so.

    5. David, why on earth would Youngkin have raised this dead issue if it weren't to continue to ban books like this and keep other kids from reading accurate racial history?

      And yes, asking that a book not be included in a syllabus is banning it. By the way, the syllabus comes from the AP test administrators in a teacher's guide that tells teachers of AP high school courses how to prepare their students for the test. Without reading Beloved, those high school kids, preparing for a college level test that will give them actual college credit (at many universities) if they pass, will not be able to answer questions correctly and will get lower scores on that exam. It is surely up to parents to decide whether their high school kids are ready for college level reading, and no one forced this Murphy kid to take an optional college level course in high school.

      Each year, there are parents who object to Catcher in the Rye because of the swearing, and other books because of similar adult content. The Scarlet Letter is about illicit sex, after all. This is nothing new. Only the racial aspect is new in this situation. Somerby wants to pretend it is the "bestiality" and not race that Murphy objects to, but we all know that is ridiculous. Even Somerby knows it at some level.

    6. @3:24 According to your definition of "banned", it would appear that every book ever written is "banned", except for the few dozen on the school syllabus.

      I think the key word in your definition may be "Parents". When a book isn't used because Educators don't want to use it, that's not "banning". It's only "banning" when Parents don't want to use it.

      This distinction is what the issue is about. Should parents have any say in their children's education? Many parents have complaints about the job professional educators are doing. These parents want their views to be heard.

    7. Don't be ridiculous.

      Parents always have a say in their kids'education. They can go to parent-teacher night or contact the teacher any time they want to express concerns. Most teachers accommodate parent wishes. They can contact the principal and school board. If they are acting in good faith, as this woman clearly was not.

      This is a situation of one parent trying to decide what should happen to other people's kids.

    8. Why not just home school your kid if you don’t want him exposed to the teacher’s book list? Heaven forbid we treat teachers as professionals, and heaven forbid your kid gets exposed to different ideas than they get at home. How many competing parental interests will end up simply canceling the entire curriculum? Perhaps we should ban, or i mean, remove Shakespeare. There are an awful lot of dick jokes in there. And don’t get me started on the Bible: rape, incest, genocide, an irrational sky god. Scary stuff.

    9. mh - I think you're minimizing the (alleged) problems with public schools. It's a lot more than objections to a few books.

      You mentioned home schooling as an alternative. Home schooling is indeed becoming more popular, as more parents become dissatisfied with their public schools. And, the home-schooled kids are doing very well. To me, that's an indictment. Parents, who are really untrained amateur teachers, can do as well as or better than professionals with the entire educational establishment behind them.

    10. "Why not just home school your kid..."

      Why don't you just read bestiality porn books to your kid at home? Y'know, at the bedtime, like a lullaby.

      Seems like a much easier solution than homeschooling.

    11. If only these ancillary people stayed in their place and kept their damn mouths shut.

      You know…parents.

    12. Republicans still laser-focused on the rigged economy draining the swamp, and easing the "economic anxiety" of their voters, I see. LOL.

      Let's face it. Liberals couldn't possibly be more condescending towards Republican voters than Republican politicians are toward them.

    13. Actually, there are other people and groups that could get away with condescending false patronage towards gullible Republicans too.

      To be persuasive, condescension must come at least with gravitas and a moral facade. There’s no way anyone buys that from liberals. Not even their fellow liberals.

      Nowadays it’s openly and knowingly about power and control.

    14. Re: The Lincoln Project

      I don't think you can accurately describe people who don't think white grievance can solve all their problems as "Republicans".

    15. You certainly can’t describe LP and the people who paid them for their VA race stunt as being that either.

    16. Even Rationalist fell for the "economic anxiety" shtick.
      What a goofball.
      I hope this wakes him/ her up to reality.

    17. Republican politicians to their voters:
      Let them eat books that don't discuss slavery.

    18. Democrats are now back to “What CRT?”

    19. 10:23,
      Quick reminder that the Republican voters you are trying to gaslight us into believing are economically anxious, and not at all typical Right-wing bigots, didn't make a peep when Trump gave corporations and the rich a HUGE tax break, but did try to overthrow Congress when black people's votes counted in an election.
      You're going to need to troll much, much harder.

    20. No, thanks, Anonymouse 10:23am. No matter how I might try, I could never out-troll you.

  3. Once again, Somerby's column revolves around a technicality, that Murphy didn't actually want to ban the book Beloved, just excuse her son from reading it. But it is naive to believe that Republicans are not trying to ban books they dislike from school libraries, just as their laws against CRT prohibit books and teaching they dislike in classrooms.

    No one thinks Murphy's crusade was for parental control over what kids read. It is specifically aimed at a book about race, and that is what this is about.

  4. Somerby refers to The Sixth Sense, a movie in which a boy claims to see dead people, something no one believes is possible. He equates that sixth sense with liberal abilities to see The Other, as if The so-called Other do not exist either, except in liberal imaginations. Unfortunately, The Other are real and not an invention of an overactive imagination. They are busy with an agenda that is not good for American democracy, and it doesn't take any effort at all to find them at work on their fascist plans.

    Digby provides an overview:

  5. Is Somerby seriously trying to argue that Laura Murphy who appears in Republican Youngkin's campaign ad, doesn't exist? That she isn't trying to stop the accurate teaching of racial history in schools by getting the book Beloved removed from the curriculum? And that Youngkin isn't making hay off of her efforts by allying himself with her (instead of Trump) as a campaign statement? Of course this is happening. And of course this woman wants to get Beloved banned. If it were simply about the book itself, she would just tell her son not to read it, call in sick, remove himself from the AP class (not a required course in high school). Her campaign isn't about her son but about what other kids are able to read and learn about. That much is obvious.

    And conservative abuses are not made up by M. Night Shyamalan.

  6. "What is, or what was, the question at hand?"

    This is an 8-year old controversy that is being revived in order to elect Youngkin, a conservative Republican, as Governor of Virginia. The issue at hand is not what Murphy's son reads. It isn't what other kids read either, since that was resolved a long time ago. What is the question at hand?

    It is whether Youngkin should be elected and if elected, what he will do about conservative demands that schools not teach accurate racial history. This has nothing to do with the issue Somerby raises, about what Murphy wanted done about her son's nightmares. That issue is not discussed by Onion because it is not relevant to today's question, which is about whether Youngkin should be elected governor, why he has disassociated himself from Trump (without making it clear he has done so) and why he has revived a past complaint this way in order to throw red meat to Republicans in the state.

    Instead Somerby pretends this is about Beloved and Murphy's son, which it is not and likely never was about. Somerby is pretending this is about reporting on an 8-year-old story instead of the current governor's race. And he is pretending that The Others are more moderate than they are. But Somerby isn't fooling anyone, certainly not liberals who recognize bullshit when we hear it and right-wing fear-mongering when we see it in Republican campaign ads.

    Oh, no! Those nasty liberals are insisting that kids read books by black people about bestiality! The horror! Better vote for Youngkin, even if he might be a closet never-Trumper! Can't have kids learning about how slaves were treated like animals! Oh No!

  7. This post is just another sad, sick reminder of Somerby's hatred of aromatic vegetables.

    1. These are the things Somerby hates:

      (1) professors
      (2) female reporters
      (3) gay cable news hosts
      (4) liberals
      (5) female victims of sexual assault, especially by Trump but also by Stanford swimmers aiming at the Olympics
      (6) all of the 2020 Democratic candidates for President, but especially Kamala Harris
      (7) Hillary Clinton, except when she illustrates what was done to Al Gore
      (8) Did I mention Rachel Maddow?
      (9) His next door neighbor
      (10) Women who persecute standup comedians by complaining about sexual abuse
      (11) Women, especially grifters who accuse presidential candidates of making them sign NDA's, such as Stormy Daniels
      (12) The style, fashion and women's pages at newspapers
      (13) Female cable news hosts
      (14) liberals
      (15) did I mention liberals?

      Sorry, nothing about vegetables on Somerby's list.

    2. Well, quick! Add the vegetables, what are you waiting for?

    3. He also seems to despise nougat.

    4. Looking at the bright side: dear Bob does like anthropology. And for that all is forgiven.

      ...although, is it really possible to hate liberals? Who else is clowning as well as they do?

  8. In case Somerby truly cannot tell who are The Other in Youngkin's campaign, here is a rundown from Judd at Popular Information (Youngkin campaign pushes election fraud claims: "I know how Democrats are cheating"):

  9. Somerby is being massively unfair to Emily J. Knox. She was interviewed to talk about the history of book banning, not to discuss Murphy, much less Youngkin's ad. There is no reason why she should or should not characterize Murphy's crusade as banning when that was not the purpose of her interview.

    But Somerby loves to punch professors and he uses any flimsy excuse to do so, even when Knox agrees with Murphy that Beloved is graphic. But it is entirely unreasonable for Somerby to expect Knox to know details of Murphy's 8-years ago crusade, much less understand those details in exactly the way Somerby does. Her purpose in the Slate article was to place Murphy's complaints into a larger context of efforts to take controversial books off library shelves. But that doesn't prevent Somerby from doing his own professor-bashing, because who are these damned female experts to tell the rest of us anything about their specialties, even if they have devoted years of study to their topics -- what can they know?

    Phooey on Somerby.

  10. So despite the typical squealing and squirming we see above, asking that a book not be part of student curriculum is not the same as banning. Banning is an idea that creates an emotional response.

    And accuracy in news should be important, more important than riling up the tribe over those terrible Others' conduct. To those that care, anyway.

    1. Murphy's son was already not reading the book, so what else is her campaign about other than banning it for other kids?

    2. It's only about creating a fake campaign issue.

    3. Yes, it's both sides doing the same old song and dance.

      It would just be nice if people didn't see criticism of one side as an endorsement of the other. Could that be possible some day? "Experts say no..."

    4. Both sides? I don't see the Dems creating a fake issue in this situation.

    5. A group supporting the Democrats created a fake news event by planting fake white supremacists outside of the Virginia Republican dude's bus in order to swiftboat him. Another reckless and cynical playing of the race card designed to fool the rubes. It backfired big time as you will see later tonight.

    6. It looks like Youngkin has easily defeated McAuliffe in a sign of things to come for Democrats. Establishment, race-mongering Democrats are in for a very rough ride.

    7. The group that did that was the Lincoln Project. They are anti-Trump Republicans and have no association with Democrats at all. Seems to me those white supremacists were the ones playing the race card, not those mocking them. Democrats didn't do this stunt.

    8. Democratic strategist James Carville publicly supported the action. The Lincoln project did it presenting themselves as supporting Democrats and McAuliffe. So it's very bad for Democrats. It has been pinned on them and it's one of the reasons for tonight's Democratic loss. The irony is that the Lincoln project supports the Republican policies. Maybe they did it as a way to sink Macauliffe. And maybe that's why Democrats should not have foolishly got in bed with them during the Trump years. Still, all in all, establishment Democrats are going to have a very, very rough go of it henceforth. Really all they can do is let crazy Republicans beat them and subsequently completely screw up the country and then come in and run on a policy of "we are not them". That's what happens when you don't stand for anything.

    9. Plus it might not have even been the Lincoln project that did it. They might just be taking the fall for some idiotic democratic consultant or maybe even the McAuliffe campaign themselves. Who knows?

    10. Yes, that is the essence of conspiracy theories -- to just make up shit and then believe it because you said it.

      Democrats are not associated with the Lincoln Project, who have taken responsibility for this stunt. McAuliffe had nothing to do with it either. Unless you have some evidence, please stop spreading disinformation here.

    11. Maybe Democrats didn't do anything at all and had nothing to do with Carville (who is not on anyone's campaign) or McAuliffe. Maybe you are talking out of your ass in an attempt to smear the left, because that's what Republicans do, including Somerby.

    12. I said "who knows?" I have no interest in smearing Democrats. I just think they have done very poorly representing themselves and connecting with people and that's why they lost tonight, lost in 2016, would have lost in 2020 if not for the pandemic and will continue to lose election after election, year after year. You make everyone who is not a Pollyanna out to be an enemy. I want them to win dummy and stop being foolish. Somerby probably too.

    13. Well at the very least all connections with the Lincoln project must be ceased immediately.

    14. 829, at least two of the fake white supremacists have been identified as working for the Virginia Democratic party. So it's completely plausible to think it was pulled off by a democratic group. It was Democrats that participated in this event and Democrats who created a fake news story inflamed racial hatred by acting as white supremacists.

    15. 831 Democrats did have something to do with this. At least two of the participants have been identified as working for the Democratic party in Virginia. These Democrats inflamed racial hatred and used race as a toy to try to upend a political opponent which is as disgusting and low and sleazy as it gets. Democrats. These were Democrats that created this damaging false flag.

    16. Tonight's resounding Democratic defeats send a clear message to race obsessed Democrats: stop relying on pandemics and sleazy racial stunts to win your elections for you.

    17. Exactly. White grievance is the way to win elections, nowadays.

    18. There seems to be a new troll here spreading disinformation.

    19. @12:39 AM

      What do liberals have besides race-mongering? Absolutely nothing.

      Their main pursuit - offshoring well-paying blue-collar jobs and importing cheap migrant labor - can't be too popular.

    20. No - it's not white grievance or a troll. At some point you're going to have to stop deflecting and avoiding and look at yourself.

    21. "it's not white grievance"
      Yes, it's something else, which no Republican voter, supporter, or politician can describe in words.
      GTFOH, with that idiocy.

  11. "Murphy is a conservative activist: We're instantly told that the older blond woman is "a conservative activist." To the extent that that statement is true, a question arises: So what?

    The fact that a proposal is advanced by an activist doesn't speak to the possible merit of the proposal. "

    Are you writing this with a straight face. It's classic swift boating.

    1. Seems a bit harsh... the swift boat thing was totally revising history. But I see the parallels.

  12. "We're told that the son of the older blond woman now works for the National Republican Congressional Committee."

    Reading Beloved has clearly prepared him to treat immigrants and asylum seekers as non-human cattle to be herded into pens. It seems like good training for assuming various roles in a Republican administration that doesn't believe that anyone should be treated like humans except white Christian conservatives. Murphy should bless Morrison for writing such an instructive manual for her son's future career.

  13. "Still, readers of Slate are instantly pleasured, right in the headline, with the claim that Murphy was trying to "ban" Beloved"

    What else was she trying to do?

    Every year, many, if not most, high schoolers fail to read the books assigned in their English classes. Do their parents challenge the curriculum? Do they do anything about it at all? Do they even know what their kids are not reading?

    This woman's actions speak louder than any descriptive term applied to her "challenge" of Beloved. And why Beloved? That too speaks louder than denials that this isn't really about race at all, but about how shocking it is when people are treated like animals.

    And in a larger sense, it is about 18 year old boys being treated like snowflakes. Is it good for them to be sheltered from reality for so long, when they will surely encounter plenty of shocking things in real life, immediately after graduation. For one thing, they must register for the draft. For another, they will lose many of their close friends, especially if they go off to college outside their home towns. And they will no longer be allowed to sleep with high school girls, who will become illegal when the boys turn 18 and are adults. A little reading about how much worse their lives could be won't hurt them.

    But we all know that Murphy's "challenge" was just about Republican politics, not her child. And that's why it matters that she be labeled a Republican activist, so that no one confuses her with a loving mom.

    1. The reasons you react the way you do is about politics, not the children. The readers are reading, not to be informed, or because they care about the children, but to get their political fix, to be "pleasured".

      It's turtles all the way down.

    2. Meh.

      Yes, the dembot reacts the way she reacts because she is a dembot. That is true. There is no other plausible explanation.

      On the other side, however, we don't see any reason to doubt that parents earnestly object to having their children exposed to bestiality porn.

  14. “this process is playing out everywhere, within our own highly moral blue tribe and also within the red. “

    So both sides are fully tribal.

    So exactly why should we assume Murphy is sincere?

    1. Joe Biden has lower approval ratings at this stage of his presidency than nearly any president in the era of modern polling.

    2. No, that's Trump who holds that distinction.

    3. 10:08,
      Lower that when Trump gave corporations and the rich HUGE tax breaks, and Republican voters, who are economically anxious, and not at all bigots, didn't make a peep?
      That seems hard to believe.

    4. 12:35,
      That's unfair. They would totally have burnt Trump Tower to the ground, if they weren't so turned-on by Trump's bigotry.

  15. Great website.  A lot of useful  information here. I’m sending it to several friends and  also sharing in delicious. And obviously, thanks in your effort! Check out wells fargo pre approval credit card 

  16. So, Bob believes liberals are the true evil ones and always lie and mislead, especially Rachel Maddow. What he has to say about the matter at hand seems to be nothing.

  17. i am here to give my testimony about a doctor who save my life. i was infected with HERPES for than 2 years, I tried different doctors over a period of time but no one work, but when i came on the Internet i saw great testimony about DR USELU  how he was able to cure someone from HERPES virus with the help of herbal medicine I contacted him and he promised to cure my herpes virus.well i decided to give him a try, DR USELU put his best in it and gave me good and effective result just as he has promised. well after taking all the treatment sent to me by Dr USELU i went back to the Hospital for check up, and now i have been confirmed HERPES Negative. You can contact him if you have any kind of sickness like, HERPES, HIV, CANCER, PILE, HEPATITIS, DIABETES, and alot more you can contact him ON Whatsapp (+2347052898482) or Email

  18. Useful information. Thanks for sharing.
    Need Support For Printer? Visit our website! | | hp envy 5070 driver | 2652 | 2752| 5070

  19. Thanks for sharing this useful information.

    Need assistance for printer? We are provide extensive solution for hp printer setup, driver install and wifi setup. Visit us to our website.

    HP Envy 6055e Wifi Setup
    HP Envy Photo 7858 Wifi Setup

  20. You made some decent points there. I looked on the internet for the issue and found most individuals will go along with with your website.
    Click Here
    Visit Web

  21. Right away, let it be said that Onion isn't silly, stupid, crazy, dumb or even tribally nutty. She works from the saner, sounder, deeper end of the mainstream press corps pool. I am totally agree with you. There are some other point also you made here. Thank you so much
    Buy Phone repair parts and tools