Inform, Inspire, Embolden. Reconcile!

‘Eritrean Unity’: As Power Over Life

The Unconscious Eritreans

We are the worst of the worst; ask any fellow. The global biopolitics has put us in the worst of 1%. Imagine any human parameter of normative value, at a global scale, and line individual values in a curve, and you observe Eritreans falling under the lowest 1% of this normal curve of this imagined parameter.  Statistical theories have long established a higher probability of normality for a population of more than 30 individuals to acquire characters that hold the average and the median. So, ideally, as a collective, we should have been all over this curve: the few unfortunate of us being on the tail, the majority being on the belly, and the few fortunate of us being on the best end. Yet, all of us are persistently in the tail. And this phenomenon has endured for decades now–without us being conscious of it. Then the questions will be: how come this enduring misery can’t create consciousness of the masses? How deep is our rock bottom? When will we start to say “enough! we had it all!”? Are we that much cowards to stand against authority? Is there anything called a cowardly mass to begin with?

I think there isn’t. And we feel we are conscious. We have said and are saying enough, but for an incomplete reason. It’s just that the motivation for our defiance isn’t comprehensive. Our motivation, while it emanates from true desperations, it keep feeding the discourses of power that we should be challenging. PFDJ has an absolute right of death-this is an obvious fact and most conspicuous. As such, opposition is geared towards challenging this coercive power. We think of the government’s power as reductionist, as such we strive to maximize individual, ethnic or religious power. As the right to death is located in institutions, we work to dismantle them. We hate and point to the fact that our people are living in a panopticon style prison where they always feel of being watched and act accordingly. This primitive PFDJ surveillance system is a bummer, and we are all aware of that. But, all these do not amount to consciousness. We still are pushing one side of the wall. Simultaneous with our struggle against PFDJ’s coercive power, we need to challenge its power over our lives.

What is Power over Life?

Foucault, in his brilliant work on “The History of Sexuality”, has outlined the paradigm shift on how power is exercised by the sovereign since the Victorian era.  He argues, what was once socially banal or normal and morally right is now relegated back to the private sphere; in this specific work sexuality. And this is made possible through the discourses of enhancing life. For instance, the power of enforcing a diet regimen is done in the sake of enhancing peoples’ health. This, however, discursively and instantly produces the oppressed in the form of undesired obese. According to him, the classical liberal theories of power, which are useful in understanding judicial power (or right to death), are no longer robust in explaining this new form of power over life. When opposition against the new form of repression over the once banal falls within the frameworks of classical power theories, it becomes more of a supporter than a challenger. Our talks of or resistance toward such repressions bring unintended discourses around the issue in forms of concentric circles, that- in a way- protect and leave the subject matter intact, and, thus, strengthen the oppressing power structure.

Now, for argument’s sake, let’s see the issue of unity in the Eritrean identity discourse through the lenses of power over life. The contemporary discourses on Eritrean identity recognize unity as tantamount to uniformity hade libi, hade hizbi! There were once times when Eritreans were proud of their micro- identities. People were proud of being Muslims, Christians, Tigrignas, Tigres, Bejas or whatnots. And they were very much open about it. It was normal to tease people for their specific identities; and the teased would take it more as a sign of endearment than antagonism. I would argue; we still feel proud of our micro-identities. However, the context of understanding these identities has been changed once and for all (or what was once banal is regressed to be taboo), as such, we see the need to do it in private. The ceiling, below which one is allowed to enjoy his/her micro-identity, has been gradually lowered through time. Consequently, the only identity allowed to surface is the one that banners hade libi. How is that possible and what are the power elements in it? Why is it even important to this discussion?

Our colonial masters, especially His Highness- Emperor Hailessilassie’s regime, saw our comfort in our diversity. And they were astute enough to see the potency in it. Once they got their assumptions right, dividing us along these lines of micro identities came as a solution to their fear. They pursued that solution, and had us divided beyond recognition. When we started the armed resistance, except for the few avant-garde, the majority had this distortion as a backdrop. Then came the crooked (ELF/EPLF Politburo) that used the dialectics in our beauty to satisfy their power hungry egos, which then is culminated, through time, to a synthesis in the form of hade libi. Hade Libi discourse embodies power over life. It plays into this historical awareness of ours, and poses as an ultimate means to our existence. It enables our irrational act of self reservation. It requires us to self- scrutinize and self-form ourselves, and in a process makes us docile. It creates norms around it and even selects words for us when we communicate within its frame. Surveillance is enforced through these norms, not only that the norms act as a disciplining power per se, but also as behavior molders where one’s next step becomes predictable. Resistance against this discourse is, therefore, nearly impossible. When we reconnect with our micro-identity in as a form of resistance, almost instantly, we are dispatched as jihadists, agames, traitors, unionists or CIAs. Therefore, resistance- especially through reconnecting with one’s micro identity-feeds and strengthens the PFDJ power discourse, instead of weakening it. The stereotypes, perceptions and prejudices associated with these name callings share one cognitive domain-that of enmity.  This is an evidence to the postulate that hade libi as a concept can only be comprehended when we visualize Eritrea in a constant and never-ending war. Hade libi, in its pure form as a concept of defense, places the ills as exclusively external. By the time we think we have a clear definition of what it meant to be united, all we have is a hyper vigilance to a non-existing external threat and the negations of these perceived bad. Thus, hade libi is a cherished concept that cannot be independently and reasonably defined. Its definition is not-being-something-else, like not being agame, or jihad or traitor.

By claiming authorship of the contemporary Eritrean identity, PFDJ is at the center of the hade libi discourse. As PFDJ is personified by PIA, an allegiance to hade libi is thus an allegiance to PIA [nihna-nisu, nisu-nihna]. Since it is nearly impossible to attack a concept not defined in principle, the author remain safe by turning any attack back to the originator. Critiquing the concept carries-within it- the stereotypes of the negated, thus puts the criticizer on the disadvantage. As the silencing power of the hade libi discourse persists, it develops into dogma. That is what hade libi is now in Eritrea. Even those of us who loathe the concept cannot shake it off completely; we will remain agnostic. (Haven’t you read comments of people calling others unionists at awate.com? That is us being tipsy under the influence of hade libi.) As reasonable debate to come into senses becomes impossible; crusade surfaces as an only option. Arguably, none of us would want to go there.

Does PIA have the sophistication and the mental faculty to coin this concept with its elements of power? The Answer is NO! He is as smart as a goldfish. Had he been smarter, as power over life widely functions in liberal democracies, his regime would have been democratic while setting norms of life. But, certainly, he takes an advantage off this inevitable historical occurrence. He does capitalize on it. And those masses who internalize the concept wouldn’t dare to challenge as the concept itself requires self reservation. This is how the regime gets sustenance for its illegitimate rule. It is not because people are cowards, or not because we didn’t commit ourselves enough in challenging the regime’s coercive power; it is just that we do not have a strategy to effectively counter its power over life.

Then how do we form an effective resistance against an oppressor which functions through a norm that is set to discredit resistance? Here are my two cents:

Resistance through Subversion

Now that we know hade libi has an established morale appeal, mobilizing against it would mean immoral, thus is futile. It’s a definite way to treason-treason, at least, in the mind of the masses. However, we can undermine its morale appeal by discrediting the assumptions over which its discourse rests for its comprehension. This method of resistance, when effective, is called resistance through subversion. The assumptions could be one of those: ‘we have to remain united because,…

  1. Our enemies are always at bay working and waiting for our disunity.
  2. We can’t be trusted with our micro-identities.’

The first assumption places all ills on external danger. Means: it readily assumes a perfect internal cohesion worth of envy by others, or whatever internal ills we have are trifling, thus can be relegated. This external threat (though now is more of imagined than real) has its origin in our historical memory. The fallacy however lays in the amount of significance bestowed to this rather insignificant historical occurrence to the point of dictating our national narrative. In our vast historical existence, a decade long conspiracy holds significant weight solely for its relevance as a boogie man. Back in the days, when our colonial masters had us divided along ethnic and religious lines, they were the ones who had a complete reign on our lives. They appointed our political and religious officials, and did other favors for them. Now, we are a country. We do not have foreign masters who would bribe parliamentarians for votes casted against independence. We are independent already. There is no reason for us to live in a state of guarding the federation. Resistance through subversions, therefore, can come in the form of pointing this illogical reasoning. We shall make fun of this line of reasoning and point to the imbecility of believing in it. We have to find a way to entertain the concept of hade libi only when it is forward looking and means to be inclusive; not when it is understood as a necessity to avoid Ethiopianism. We have to entertain unity though. It shouldn’t be forced on us. It shall remain as concept of choice. Otherwise, we will fall into similar form of oppression that, this time around, will have our future and inclusiveness as its context.

The second assumption categorically views Eritreans as incompetent collectives who cannot be trusted with adult stuff. It takes us for babies who would immediately resort to competition with what our parents have given us (the analogy is that of kids saying “my toy is bigger and more expensive than yours” at a play ground). Once I rightly claim what is mine through my parents; this assumption argues; I will instantly belittle what is others for I am a kid, and that is what kids do. Our immatureness, constructed as real and greatly problematized, subject to two obvious ‘elixirs for our own sake’, or so we’re told. One of owning a collective toy (Eritrea in hade libi) and another of having and tolerating an enforcer who does things at his/her volition to guarantee collective ownership of this toy even when it meant of forcing us to abandon our micro-identities. Refraining from being dictated by our egos and accepting the fact that micro-identity is irrelevant to be projected as an accomplishment can thus be waged as resistance through subversion. This shall not be done in a sense of following the conduit channeled by hade libi as a power over life. It has to come as depicting our adultness to discredit the bases, on which this specific assumption rests.

We are the Same Already

The problem is not being Hade Libi. It is the perception that precedes hade libi that begs for a closer look. Once we perceive the risk of our fissiparousness as real, we tend to wish for superglue- in this case hade libi. And this superglue comes with a deceitful enforcer who waives our individual rights for a false sense of unity and security. One of the reasons for our active perception of divisiveness is our failure to see our differences as mostly superficial and socially constructed. We often fail to see ourselves as humans first, and, instead, put more emphasis on aspects that differentiate us from each other; even when we know that these differences do not change the fact that we are inherently the same. We don’t need to change the way we dress, or eat, or talk, or pee; or the God that we worship. We just need to accept those differences as sources of beauty that add color and flavor to the otherwise mundane and uneventful life of ours. Wouldn’t it be boring to have a country that would look like a boarding school exclusively for boys, or girls? Believe me, it would. And who says a country like that would be more secure and united? Go no farther … look Somalia. So the entire argument that we will be safe and secure if we remain uniform is bogus and serves one and one interest: that of PFDJ’s. But, we cannot opt for dis-uniform, no matter how-after the facts- this, as a solution, sounds obvious and alluring. Yet, we can stop believing the single story that makes uniformity appealing and productive.

To discredit the assumptions that dictate the need for sameness with our neighbor, we shall practice our neighbors’ life style by choice. If you are a Muslim, go to church. If you are Tigrigna, wear sarongs. If you are Christian, slaughter a lamb or two during Eid al-Fitr. Resist any ruse (when stated or implied) that discursively constructs us as deserving oppressed in the form of brittles and spoiled babies. And, that is what an effective resistance against PFDJ- which appoints itself as a guardian of unity- looks like. Let’s deprive them of power over our lives.

Pinterest
  • YAY

    Dear Ambassader: “We are the worst of the worst”? What are you talking about?
    You claim that, “We are the worst of the worst; ask any fellow. The global bio-politics has put us in the worst of 1%. Imagine any human parameter of normative value, at a global scale, and line individual values in a curve, and you observe Eritreans falling under the lowest 1% of this normal curve of this imagined parameter.”
    You gave us no raw or statistical data or any facts on “individual values” about Eritrea(ns) for us to understand your imaginary normal curve. Your broad generalizations are about what? based on what? and for what purpose? Nobody really said anything on it, so I will.
    You again say ” Yet, all of us are persistently in the tail. And this phenomenon has endured for decades now–without us being conscious of it. Then the questions will be: how come this enduring misery can’t create consciousness of the masses? How deep is our rock bottom? When will we start to say “enough! we had it all!”? Are we that much cowards to stand against authority?”
    Are only cowards who do not stand up to authority? Which authority should we stand against, and why? Are we conscious of what? Enduring misery creates awareness/experience of the misery itself in the victims, but the victims may not see why, how or what or who caused it. What kind of misery are we talking about? Take, for example, the 18 months national service becoming indefinite, which causes its own miseries on Agelglot and their families. Is the principal cause of the misery the decision-maker who made Agelglot indefinite to meet the nation’s needs, or the adversary who compelled ER’s decision maker to extend it? Another thing to consider is to consider the relative importance or weight of the different miseries. Should you give priority to miseries of an individual member of the G-15 in preventive detention, or the misery of a larger group of people, or those of the nation as a whole? How do you prioritize and strategize when all the problems show up at once? You added no new knowledge– “Knowledge is Power”– to us on such issues.

    It is the answers to why, how and by what or by whom that offer knowledge to victims, or anyone else, to even imagine of what to do, and what the best options are for an individual, a family, a group not related by blood, compatriots, etc. to consider either to overcome or lessen the harm of the misery. You don’t get up and say “Enough!” to any authority, unless you are certain that that authority is the direct cause of your misery. So, how are you connecting the people’s miseries with saying Enough! to Eritrean authorities? For instance, a significant change of circumstances followed the ET-ER border war, and ET and ER agreed to solve their conflict through EEBC; and the verdict is out in details, and our problems (our people’s miseries) could have been lessened or solved if the conflict was settled. ER has accepted the verdict right away, ET is unwilling to finalize the EEBC ruling. Now, ER’s adversaries have added another challenge to ER—i.e. regime change. It is ET’s declared goal that ER be put in a situation that increases political, economic and social strains within the nation unless ER succumbs to their demands of injustice. They are doing this presumably to put us, the ER people, in a pressure cooker( make us suffer from want for food, employment, housing, healthcare, foreign exchange, law and order, or else, wars and deaths, mayhem, disabilities, escape conscription or national service, disassociation, human trafficking, stress, anxiety, hopelessness, schizophrenia, suicides, sanctions, real threats to safety, security, and stability to form or reform our political system; others are telling us to ” pull your pants out over your head,” etc.), and we’d bicker and fight among ourselves, get divided, weakened, etc. and would be easier for them to attain their territorial, economic, and strategic goals (whatever you think those might be). We would have smaller and weaker entities instead of one national stronger unity to protect us from the injustices and threats of foreign adversaries.
    Any unity is based on the meeting of minds on purposes, the means to achieve those purposes with available resources, organized with certain leadership and governing rules/procedures. Unity always implies that those who unite chose to work together for common goals but also must tolerate and manage other points of differences. What does that mean to you if you support the essence of the slogan of “Hadde hzbi, Hadde libbi,” but oppose some policies and practices of PIA, PFDJ, or GoER? Do you want the State of ER to give in to ET’s unjustified demands, or be a subversive and ally with those who deliberately put our people in misery in order to destroy the State of Eritrea and satisfy their interests, or be independent of such ER’s enemies and try to reform it, or organize the people in ER and empower them to form/reform their own government? You failed to address these crucial questions in your ” ‘Eritrean Unity’: As Power Over Life”.

    Then, you mention some ideas from Michel Foucault’s book, THE HISTORY OF SEXUALITY, and fail to relate what you learned from it towards the grand purpose of solving ER people’s miseries. Michel was a French homosexual man who early in his life felt pressures from society and tried and failed to kill himself, but ultimately died of HIV/AIDS in 1984. He presumably tried to find out the origins of society’s disapproval and suppression of (as well as the power to approve or suppress) sexual relations outside of marriage (or perversions). Michel is vague about what exactly power is to him, but suggests that, in modern times, power does not only reside in the sovereign, government, higher-ups, but every institution and the people in it, and individual citizens possess their own power (positive or negative power in relation to certain process); and powerful elites (in business, churches, government, schools, the military, in public administration, etc.) could not have power without the support/consent of those who appear powerless; and established authority could be changed through re-structuring the relationships of large or small powers centers. He compares power of an absolute monarchy like Haile Selassie of ET ( he is the elect of God and there is no law above him, and has an absolute, and not conditional, God-given right to end anybody’s life for any reason) and power of modern governments like the GoER (whose main purpose is to sustain and enhance the lives of their peoples, and could deny certain individual rights, kill or go to war only on condition that doing so is in the best interests of protecting or enhancing the lives of the people of a nation as a whole).
    ” Today, Foucault suggests, power no longer asserts itself as a deduction, as a “right of death.” The primary interest of power now is in life, and how to secure, extend, and improve it. Wars are still waged— bloodier than ever—but they are not waged on behalf of the “right of death” of some sovereign lord, but are rather waged to secure a better way of life for an entire people. As wars have become bloodier, the death penalty has become less frequent. And whereas the death penalty was once a vengeful act of destruction, now it is seen as a safeguard, as a way of eliminating a menace to society. Power is now exercised exclusively over life, and is exercised either to foster life or to disallow it.
    This new power over life, which Foucault calls “bio-power,” takes two main forms. First, the discipline of the body, where the human body is treated like a machine: productive, economically useful, etc. This form of bio-power appears in the military, in education, in the workplace, and seeks to create a more disciplined, effective population. Second, the regulation of population, which focuses on the reproductive capacity of the human body. This form of bio-power appears in demography, wealth analysis, and ideology, and seeks to control the population on a statistical level.”

    From here you, “for arguments sake,” jumped into Eritrean unity and “bio-power” and tried to bring one slogan, Hadde hzbi, Hadde libbi, into focus, without clearly laying out the connections. We have heard and read of some comments from ET’s and ER “opposition” leaders that mischaracterize this slogan into what it is not, a narrative that amounts to the following: that the GoER is claiming that there is no diversity among ER’s people and their diversity has already been melted and molded into one, identical, homogeneous entity in every characteristic, shape or form. ER’s 1997 Constitution says that the State of Eritrea is going to be a unitary State, and its Administrative Units are going to be Zoba(s), or geographical regions, not matching any of ER’s people’s diversity. Citizens (male, female, regardless of profession, ethnicity, nationality, faith, etc., unless they are in positions of authority in public service) shall be treated equal under the law, and under normal circumstances, shall have the freedoms the Constitution provides.

    The slogan, Hadde hzbi, Hadde libbi literally means “one people, one heart”. As is known from ancient literature (Egyptian, Greek, Hebrew, Ge’ez, etc.), people used to believe that the heart was ” the center and seat of spiritual life, the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavors”. Therefore, the proper translation of “Hadde hizbi, Hadde libbi” into English would be closer to ” United and dedicated (or single-minded) people” [for a purpose]. The purpose that the Eritrean people, despite their diversity, are single-mindedly united on and are dedicated to ensure was/is the attainment and defense of our national independence and its sovereign freedoms. The slogan is not related to State structure, the rights of individuals, socio- economic groups, or the diverse biherat (or language/cultural/nationality groups), for their equality, liberty, and freedoms are already proclaimed to be sacrosanct and the implementation of which is, I believe, delayed only because of the current situation of ER.
    Who would support an Eritrean who picks out any one of these problems and believes that the only solution to these problems is to overthrow the GoER, or PIA? Who would support an Eritrean who tells us foolish if we don’t accept that our people’s normal peaceful life would be guaranteed by Ethiopia after we give them Badumma, as Gheza-E Hagos does? Who would support an Eritrean who, in times of national emergency (no-war-no-peace) demands that the GoER be condemned and overthrown because some private buildings or city roads are not well maintained or electric power is interrupted sometimes? Who does not understand that the ER nation (people and government) is facing multiple and serious problems at once? The question is: Do you do your part and cooperate with the GoER to solve the nation’s problems or point fingers at everybody else but yourself? Come to the GoER (the nation’s centralizing authority) side and ease the people’s miseries or try to overthrow that government? You tried to discuss Eritrean unity and failed to address such issues. Is overthrowing the GoER with the help of Ethiopia in the best interests of the Eritrean people? Your response, please.

    • Tamrat Tamrat

      Hi.

      Were you sleeping the last decade? All what you have said is an excuse of saffocating Eritreans With Your pfdj policy which even the king isaias tired of singing.

      You and pfdj People persuade poeple to sacrifice against ‘one ethiopia or death’ and now you persuade the same People to sacrifice for ‘one Eritrea or death’.

  • YAY

    Dear Taam’rat: Errors, ignorance, propaganda lies, exaggerations, different viewpoints, and interwoven relations

    Tamrat Tamrat on May 9, 2013 at 8:19 am said:

    “The interwoven ethnical, religious, historical relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia and its effects on Ethiopia:
    [....]

    7) The peculiar referndum ‘slavery’ or ‘freedom’ was prepared by both TPLF and Woyane and it was carried out both in Eritrea and Ethiopia. In Ethiopia the Woynae militias must hold guns agaisnt Ehiopians in case there would be oppositions. Same year some Ethiopians killed just because they wanted to demonstrate their oppositon for Butros Butros Gali the then Egyptian UN Secritary. They dont know how happy he was in this historical Egyptian day. (now Ethiopia is upset because Isayas is supporting Egypt on the nile use).”

    Anything interwoven whole or unity is made of materials (threads, ethnos or cultures, faiths, histories, fronts, etc.) that first had independent existence. So, what were interwoven could be made non-existent by either unraveling (or separating) or cutting “the threads”. Therefore, it could be concluded that “The interwoven ethnical, religious, historical relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia and its effects on Ethiopia” could, to a smaller or greater extent, unravel, be separated from their combined existence.
    Either way, the combination or separation of “the threads” would have effects on Ethiopia, as well as on Eritrea. Nothing is new about such events in human history.

    What first caught my attention was this statement:”The peculiar referndum ‘slavery’ or ‘freedom’ was prepared by both TPLF and Woyane and it was carried out both in Eritrea and Ethiopia.”

    I believe you are talking about the 1993 Eritrean Referendum on National independence. Your statement that it “was prepared by both TPLF and Woyane” is a common error, and could be excused. It was rather arranged by the then GoET (in which TPLF or EPRDF was predominantly influential), the Provisional GoER (in which EPLF was dominantly influential, and the UN(in which Boutros Ghali, as UNG Secretary, was the mouthpiece of the United Nations Organization).

    Boutros Boutros-Ghali did not dictate his will on the UN, but he did what the UN instructed him to do. To imply, without credible evidence, that Boutros Ghali, as an individual, unilaterally (because of his ethnicity, religion, nationality or personal bias, etc.) supported the Eritrean Referendum is an anti-Erirea propaganda of lies aimed at devaluing the results of the Referendum. Such lies further separate the interwoven threads of relations you claim exist. Please stop it.

    Your claim that the Referendum “was carried out both in Eritrea and Ethiopia,” is incomplete information. The people of Eritrea had to determine their future, and for that reason, the Referendum was done in many other countries around the world, too, with international observers witnessing how it was done peacefully.

    You said that,”In Ethiopia the Woynae militias must hold guns agaisnt Ehiopians in case there would be oppositions.” The Eritreans had to cast their votes in peace and order and without disturbance. To do so, some force has to keep the peace, including with pointing guns at those who intend to disrupt. That is a normal procedure of peace-keeping. Who in Ethiopia had the authority to keep the peace at that time, but the GoET, which included the “Woyane militia”. The GoET had to keep peace because the Referendum was decisively important on the future of both countries. The GoET had to do the peace-keeping whether it supported or opposed Eritrean independence. Yours and mine are two different view points on the issue.

    Your statement was that “The peculiar referndum ‘slavery’ or ‘freedom’….” shows that you are determined to mischaracterize the Eritrean people’s Referendum on the question of national independence. We, the Eritrean people, were informed in 1991 by the Provisional GoER that we have to wait for some time until a Referendum on the question: Should Eritrea be independent or not? is arranged. In 1993,we were asked, Should Eritrea be independent? The options of response were, YES or NO. .Now, my question to you is this: Why do you present the Referendum’s question was between
    ‘slavery’ or ‘freedom’? What evidence can you present that you claim is true? I know what you said is false because I voted in the Referendum for Independence of Eritrea, in person. Your statement is factually untrue, hence, a lie.You are purposely continuing with propaganda of lies, again to devalue the results of the Referendum, and to stand agianst the reality or continuation of Eritrea’s political independent existence. Such propaganda lies don’t bring us closer together but sparate the threads that could intertwine us all. Stop your lies and anti-Eritrea propaganda of lies and exaggeration, please.

    • Tamrat Tamrat

      It was supposed to be read by eplf and woyane.

  • habbsha

    salamat, serray and sal.
    first let me congratulate you for your objevctive and quality in your discussion. Thee are two important issues that have to be addressed properly, 1) the choice of unionists to join ethiopia. 2) the iussue of nehnan elamanan. The importance of discussiig the issue is not to blame some one, but to avoid it happen again. We know the issue of union is closed and nehnan elamnan belöngs to the owner, NSU. So can we say that the followers of unionist and nehnan elamanan are the victim of selasei and isais? Why the mebers of ELF (chrisrian and moslim) gave the name mudada(anti Ghedli) to nehnan elamanen befor YG do? but is it for the same reason?

Music

Cartoons

Links

Follow Us

Email
Print