A guide to WokeSpeak: the notorious Amherst Common Language Guide

I’m going to write about the Perfidies of the University Woke today, so please do not fault me for neglecting the Mueller report, as I have nothing to say about it that you can’t read in the mainstream media.

On the other hand, American colleges and universities are slowly but surely become bastions of censorship and ideological policing, hemorrhaging their brain-dead Zombies of Wokeness into mainstream culture; and nobody reports on that save the rightwing media. (Believe me, I check on their reports). Places like the New York Times and the New York Review of Books don’t report on things like this case of language and brain policing, because, in truth, they want America to become like Amherst College.

What did Amherst College do? You can read about it on the right-wing college monitoring site The College Fix, but what they say is confirmed by Amherst itself. Amherst College is a four-year, all-undergraduate liberal arts school in Western Massachusetts, and has been Woke for a long time. It’s two notches less woke than The Evergreen State College, one notch less than Sarah Lawrence, and one notch more woke than Williams College; and I use “woke” as a term of disapprobation.

As the College Fix and Amherst College itself reports, the College’s Office of Diversity and inclusion issued a 40-page “Common Language Guide“, accessible by clicking on the screenshot below (the College Fix saved it; I haven’t found it anywhere else).

Here’s why the office did it (it turns out they did it on their own without consulting the University administration):

In other words, this was an attempt to standardize language, which of course is their way to creating and enforce a common ideology from which students should not deviate

Here are the topics, each of which contains a number of explanations/definitions:

And if you read the document (I recommend looking at it), you will see WokeSpeak par excellence. Here are just a few definitions from the Intersectionalist Handbook.  The first is the most invidious, as it implies that there can be no racism except from the more privileged: one can only “punch up”:

They handily dispose of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream:

And don’t even think about genetically based differences between groups, as that’s tantamount to eugenics and genocide. By the way, I know of no “biological determinists’ who think all human behavior is innate. That’s a distortion and, in fact, a lie concocted for ideological reasons.

Like the one below, the “definitions” are of course heavily larded with value judgements. Yes, “nonbinary” people can have a “beautiful existence”, but so can other people. What do they mean by that?

I guess I’m one of those “alt-righters” (yes, I’m accused of that constantly, though I’ve always voted Democratic, and voted for Bernie Sanders in the last Presidential Primary) who have no issue with calling “undocumented immigrants” “Illegal immigrants”. That doesn’t make me anti-immigrant, but you either enter a country legally or not. “Undocumented” is, of course, a euphemism designed to mask the illegality.

The one below is new to me: resources are indeed limited, but you can recognize that without blaming minorities, for crying out loud. After all, it’s the rich capitalists and First World countries that are exploiting fossil fuels and putting pipelines everywhere. And the scarcity of clean water in Africa can hardly be blamed on too much use of water by Africans.

The one below implies that there are no genetic differences between ethnic groups, but if that’s the case, how do companies like 23&Me identify people’s ancestry? Of course there are no finite number of easily distinguishable races, nor any one or two genetic markers that can diagnose someone’s origin, but that does not mean that race is a purely social construct. In fact, it cannot be, and the case of Rachel Dolezal proves that. Nevertheless, we have this:

It goes on and on like this, ripped from the pages of the Everyday Feminism site. One can guess that this handbook would serve Salon well, and might soon be distributed as a style guide at the New York Times.

The good news is that when this handbook became public, it enormously embarrassed the Amherst administration. The College’s President, Carolyn “Biddy” Martin, even posted a message that includes these words (my emphasis):

The “Common Language Document” produced by the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and circulated yesterday at Amherst takes a very problematic approach. The document defines terms in an effort to assist people in talking with one another about their identities and positions. The motivation of those who generated the definitions is understandable.  They were responding to questions from people who wanted to know better how historically underrepresented groups and individuals think about their identities and positions.

The job of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion is to support students in their academic aspirations by helping create a welcoming environment, one in which members of the community understand and respect one another’s backgrounds and perspectives. But when the approach assumes campus-wide agreement about the meaning of terms and about social, economic, and political matters, it runs counter to the core academic values of freedom of thought and expression. I was not aware that the document was being produced and I did not approve its circulation. It cuts against our efforts to foster open exchange and independent thinking. It is not a formal college document and will not be used as one.

Awareness and understanding of backgrounds and experiences other than one’s own are vital.  Using language that conveys respect for those differences is part of building community.  But prescribing a particular language and point of view is anathema.

Good for her.

And Norm Jones, Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, quickly backpedaled (my emphasis), issuing this statement on the same page (my emphasis):

Statement by Norm Jones

Dear Students, Faculty, and Staff,

You may have read a note sent this afternoon from my office regarding a Common Language Guide.

The document was created by the Office of Diversity and Inclusion as a response to requests from members of the community who asked for definitions of terms associated with identity, diversity, and inclusion.  I believe it was a mistake to send it from my office to the entire community because of the implication that the guide is meant to dictate speech and expression or ideology on campus. It does not represent an official position of the College or an expectation that everyone on campus should use any particular language or share a point of view. The goal was to help create greater awareness of the ways many people at Amherst and beyond understand their own identities.  [JAC: But not everybody understands these definitions the way they’re meant.]

Please let me know if you would like to talk about any of this.


Norm Jones
Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer

He must have gotten a painful trip to the woodshed!

A few points:

a) It’s good news that the President disavowed this handbook, but I can’t help but believe that she did it as much to protect Amherst’s reputation (who would send their kid to a school with language dictated like that?) as to emphasize the principles of free speech.

b) I do not believe Norm Jones didn’t intend to create “an expectation that everyone on campus should use any particular language or share a point of view.” Of course he did! This is the language policing common at American universities.

c) Why didn’t Jones run this by the administration before putting it out? That’s an unconscionable breach of authority.

d) My prediction: soon all of American Left-wing media will be adhering to these definitions. I see in the offing no reversal of this kind of language policing.

e) Shoot me now.


  1. Posted March 26, 2019 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    going with e) for the sub

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted March 26, 2019 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

      That was kind of a high-risk request, don’t you think? 😉


      • Posted March 26, 2019 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

        Yup. I thought of going with “cut off my legs and call me shorty ” – also high risk!!

  2. Diana MacPherson
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 10:45 am | Permalink


  3. Historian
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Norm Jones wrote this:

    “I believe it was a mistake to send it from my office to the entire community because of the implication that the guide is meant to dictate speech and expression or ideology on campus.

    So, he thinks it shouldn’t have been sent to the entire community? To what part of the community does he think it should have been sent?

    • DrBrydon
      Posted March 26, 2019 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Just those involved in investigating and disciplining students and faculty?

  4. Posted March 26, 2019 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    “The motivation of those who generated the definitions is understandable.“

    Why is it always implied that the intentions of the language police are good? I don’t think they are good at all.

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      Yeah, I objected to that, too.

    • Posted March 27, 2019 at 7:42 am | Permalink

      To be a little bit pedantic, saying you understand somebody’s motivations doesn’t necessarily imply approval.

      For example: I might say I understand Hitler’s motivations for invading the USSR (he thought the people who lived there were inferior and should be replaced by good German stock (and by “replaced” I mean “exterminated”)), but I certainly do not approve of them.

      In this case, I think it was merely a way to soften the message slightly. “We know you meant well but…”

  5. DrBrydon
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    The “Myth of Scarcity” amazes me. First, to state that resources are, in fact, infinite is risible. Second, it undercuts all arguments in favor of renewable resources. Good to know that Amherst suffers from no resource constraints itself, and can spend money creating a handbook for. . . no one?

    • Christopher
      Posted March 26, 2019 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      Silly me for thinking that the “myth of scarcity” was always a right-wing anti-environment ideology!

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

      I’m glad to see the end of scarcity. All that recycling was getting to be a pain in the arse.

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      “… the fostering of the belief that resources are limited….”

      As you note, resources are, in fact, limited.

      But we are dealing here with a cult. One tactic of cults is to require professions of sheer nonsense, whether it be Islam’s ‘perfect man’, Tertullian’s credo quia absurdum, or Winston Smith’s final embrace of 2+2=5.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted March 26, 2019 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

      That one had me shaking my head too. Unbelievably stupid. No matter what economic system you think is the correct one, the idea of how to handle the scarcity of resources is THE central question.

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

      There is a scarcity of reason at Amherst..

    • Posted March 27, 2019 at 7:47 am | Permalink

      Not only that but when people talk about limited resources and blaming groups for using too much, the people getting the blame are almost invariable the rich white people mainly because we are the ones who use a disproportionate share of them.

      • Posted March 27, 2019 at 10:40 am | Permalink

        I hear you but “we can’t afford it” is an argument used by many that don’t want to do something. When you think about it, it is the perfect expression of a political choice. How much one is willing to spend on something is often a good proxy for its societal worth. Of course, you are correct that this is often what the Republicans say about virtually any kind of proposal that will benefit the poor: “We can’t do it as it is going to cost too much.”

  6. Posted March 26, 2019 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    ” The goal was to help create greater awareness of the ways many people at Amherst and beyond understand their own identities. ”

    HOW do the people who perpetrated this obtain such privileged insight into how whoole groups of people “understand their own identities”?

    And have you sent this to all your friends and colleagues at Amhurst? An office that can generate guidance like this either publicly or, worse, privately, is a cancer. Who appointed these people, by what mandate, and what constraints are there on them?

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

      “Who appointed these people, by what mandate, and what constraints are there on them?”

      Good questions. Despite living safely at the other side of the Pond, I am already hypersensitive to the innocent-sounding phrase “diversity and inclusion”.

  7. Posted March 26, 2019 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Don’t give up the fight. I think it is far from inevitable that this stuff will keep spreading.

    I believe there are many groups that dislike these ideas but are not in a position which allows them to push back too hard. You mention the New York Times and the New York Review of Books. They both have plenty of articles from authors that are disgusted by WokeSpeak but these papers have to worry about their circulation.

    Besides looking after their economic interests, perhaps an even bigger reason they don’t push back stronger against the Woke is that they agree with their stated goals of ending racism and pushing for equality. Of course the Woke make this difficult by insisting that if you don’t buy into their ideology then you are the enemy. This just happens to also be what Trump does.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted March 26, 2019 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think it’s inevitable either, not at all. I’ve heard from many relatives and read plenty of articles about some of the more extreme ideas that were being pushed by the ‘loony left’ in the seventies – around the recognition of pedophilia as a kind of normal relationship, or the SCUM manifesto, or any number of fuckwitted ideas that have been erased from the historical graph of political progress because they were simply too ridiculous and/or appalling to survive.

      So we look back at the last fifty years and see only what we are allowed to see after time has tidied up the record – a perfect upward march of escalating insanity. ‘They’ve gotten worse and worse over the decades, and simple extrapolation says they’ll keep getting worse and worse’ – that’s the easy, facile view of the history of the western far-left over the postwar period.
      But the far-left used to kidnap people, they used to have revolutionary fronts on campuses, they used to have machine guns and ties to terrorist organisations in their own countries, not just in Palestine or wherever.

      Those ideas died, along with countless others, and they died in the main because fellow leftists and liberals hated their proponents and starved them of publicity and support. I believe the same will happen with cretinous ‘guides’ like this, along with much of the other examples of overreach being peddled by the far-left.

      • TJR
        Posted March 27, 2019 at 6:09 am | Permalink

        I certainly hope so, and I don’t think that *students* are any more daft than they were when I was one in the 80s.

        However the difference now is that there are far more middle class professional administrators (see 11 below) who suck up to the daftest students instead of standing up to them.

    • Jenny Haniver
      Posted March 26, 2019 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

      “Of course the Woke make this [pushing back against those ideas?) difficult by insisting that if you don’t buy into their ideology then you are the enemy. This just happens to also be what Trump does.”

      It’s crazy and ironic that now Trump
      has become a militant free speech advocate, who’s going to protect free speech in institutions of higher learning (but his way, with his fiat, and only for the kind of speech he deems important and suppressed), and he’s doing it because of the Woke Left’s Orwellian censoring of speech and thought. Each side is ostensibly advocating for free speech and each side demands that the speech of the other be silenced.

      • Posted March 26, 2019 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

        Agreed. Though it is probably a law without consequence, it’s a direct result of the Woke’s lack of support for free speech.

  8. Nicolaas Stempels
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Talk about a ‘virtual reality’.
    This “Common Language Guide” is a prime example of one of the reasons the US is stuck with Mr Trump as POTUS. It is a typical example of why the ‘left’ can easily be painted as fanatic idiots that have completely lost contact with reality.

  9. Flat Eric
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    The document is misnamed, because it is not a guide to correct language but a guide to correct thought. Several of the examples cited here are not ‘definitions’ In the sense that they admit the possibility that an alternative opinion could be expressed using different words. It is simply telling adults st this university what it is acceptable for them to think and say.

    • Nicolaas Stempels
      Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      Good point, thought police.

  10. Posted March 26, 2019 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Great teachable moment on part/whole fallacies on the “sexism” bit.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 26, 2019 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      The whole concept that power decides if someone is racist or sexist is flawed. As with all identity politics, it disregards the individual and treats that individual as a collective. So, if whites control the majority of political and commercial seats of power, all whites are powerful. It makes no sense.

      • TJR
        Posted March 26, 2019 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

        “Women do not hold political power”.

        Tell that to Theresa May!

        Oh, hang on a minute……..

      • Nicolaas Stempels
        Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, no sense at all.

  11. TJR
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    What struck me is that they have an “associate dean for diversity and inclusion” and a “chief diversity and inclusion officer” which sound to me like the same job.

    We were just discussing today how, in my university, we have had over the last 10 years gradually fewer and fewer academic staff but more and more administrators.

    Although, strangely, we still seem to end up having to do more and more administration ourselves.

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      TJR – right on, and another tactic with the administrators is to rename and elevate a position which of course requires an increase in salary! Example – the Associate Vice Chancellor for X becomes the Senior Associate Vice Chancellor of X, killing two birds with one stone – increase in pay and adding another administrator to fill the ‘vacancy’.

    • Keith
      Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

      Secondary education administration is a growth area, with faster than average projections according to the Bureau of Labor statistics: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/postsecondary-education-administrators.htm#tab-1

      At my institution (and probably many other colleges), doctoral degrees in Higher Education Administration are all the rage, and we seem to have an ever growing list of administrator positions that outpaces the growth of regular faculty. I am consistently unimpressed by the rigor of these administrative degrees.

      • Jon Gallant
        Posted March 26, 2019 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

        A useful compilation. Not only is the expected growth in this precious area faster than average, but the median compensation of $92.6K is none too bad. We can expect that “diversity and inclusion” figure prominently in the training programs for degrees in post-secondary Ed administration. So, it combines the advantages of a burgeoning industry—what plastics was 60 years ago—with the boons enjoyed by priests and pardoners in late Medieval times. How groovy!

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

      Because (in my experience) the proliferating administrators can order academic staff to do largely pointless administration tasks.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted March 26, 2019 at 7:19 pm | Permalink


        Speaking as an engineer who ended up spending more time on utterly pointless bureaucratic/beancounting trivia than on actual engineering, I couldn’t agree more!

        So the department hires a deputy manager in the hope that s/he will do some of this pointless form-filling and leave us to do our proper job, and it rapidly becomes apparent that the ‘assistant’ is not only NOT doing that, but is spending their time evolving more procedures and demands for financial data and forecasts which will be imposed on us to track our efficiency or cost-effectiveness or accountability or ‘compliance’ with yet more bullshit criteria, all of which will be reduced to numbers and analysed in countless ways in multi-coloured spreadsheets which nobody except their originators understands…

        The best thing about retirement from ‘engineering’? Never having to do a bloody financial forecast ever again.


    • Posted March 27, 2019 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      The Quebec students who went on strike a few years back pointed this out – but it was drowned in the noise of “you’re already paying less tuition than any other province’s students, so stop whining already” type responses.

  12. Jon Gallant
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Poster #6 asks: “Who appointed these people?”
    The answer is straightforward: they are part of the new Diversity and Inclusion clerisy, whose busy lives inevitably include attempts to expand their mission—by, inter alia, policing everybody’s language and thought.
    As to how this lay priesthood came into being, that is a long story. It presumably involved good intentions at the beginning, but remember that saying about what the road to Hell is paved with.

  13. Richard Sanderson🤴
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Remember, “skeptics” such as Thomas “SeriousPod” Smith, and Peter “Humanisticus” Ferguson would have you believe that this sort of stuff is just a “hoax”.

    They insist this in between caping for antisemites and racists, of course, while claiming they are “humanists”.

  14. Nicolaas Stempels
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    My point was and is do these idiots wokies not realise they play straight into the hands of the trumpistas and their associated Russian trolls? Are they really that dof?

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

      1) they’re so out of touch with the real world, they don’t realize it;

      2) they’re such zealots, they wouldn’t care if they did.

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

      To me, they are worse than the Trumpistas, and only marginally better the Russians themselves. I remember well that when my country was in the Soviet bloc, we had very similar phenomena.

  15. Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    The designation that refers to a person’s biological, morphological, hormonal and genetic composition. One’s sex is typically assigned at birth and classified, based on socially constructed binaries, as either male, female or intersex. However, a spectrum of sex identities and characteristics exists, and many people possess a range of biological traits.

    Allosomes and their phenotypes are not socially constructed, you psychotic freaks.

  16. Joe Dickinson
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    “Women can be just as prejudiced as men but cannot be just as sexist because they do not hold political, economic and institutional power.” Have these people not heard of, for example, Nancy Pelosi? Or the prime ministers of the UK and Germany? Indeed, I’m going out on a limb based on the name “Carolyn” to suggest that the president of Amherst is a woman.

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

      Yes, women are striving for the right to be prejudiced. 😉

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 27, 2019 at 7:46 am | Permalink

        According to that, women have achieved equality of prejudice. Finally we have realized the dream!

  17. Nicolaas Stempels
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Wokey, Wokey, Wokey, please wake up to reality.
    Your wokeness may sound great within>, your small circle, but outside of it, it just appears the nonsense, the prime junk it is.
    Why can’ t you go;kd fgibe iy reasst”

  18. max blancke
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Amherst is an institution, whose president is a woman, in which women are claimed to have no institutional power.
    Also, 53% of the faculty is female.

    As I was writing this, I saw that JD posted similar info.

    I read somewhere that one of the ways that communist organizations break down the ego of the subjects is by making them affirm things that are obviously false. Like biological sex being a social construct.

  19. Posted March 26, 2019 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    A lot of people believe people who think like this people do dominant and control the Democratic Party.

    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

      I wouldn’t go so far as to say they dominate the Democratic Party but they have more influence than they should. Most of the party don’t agree with their approach because, like most politicians, they prefer a message of unity in order to get the largest vote. They feel they can’t be seen as against the Far Left because they need the votes and they agree on the ultimate goals of ending racism and promotion of equality. I suspect there will be many moments during the Dem’s presidential campaigns where they have to counter some wacko Lefty’s question. It will be interesting to see how they handle it. I hope they swat it down like McCain did when that women in the crowd mentioned how Obama was Muslim and born in Kenya. It is not at all clear that all of them have the guts to do so.

      • Posted March 26, 2019 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

        I don’t look forward to hearing all the distortions and false allegations that will be going back on going around. It seems to be getting worse every year.

  20. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    ‘Common Language Guide’?

    I know some common language. Dead common. There’s a common word which describes all 40 pages of their guide and it’s generally abbreviated to ‘BS’.

    Their title is a misnomer. It’s not a guide to commonly used language, it’s a prescription for their wish-list of socially acceptable** terminology.

    **Acceptable to the sedulous wallies who wrote it, that is.


    • Posted March 26, 2019 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

      Exactly. They present their SJW ideology as “definitions.” What a joke.

    • Posted March 27, 2019 at 8:03 am | Permalink

      abbreviated to ‘BS’

      I’ve always thought it a bit odd that American universities abbreviate “batchelor of science” to BS. Here in Britain we would say “BSc”.

      When I watch lectures on Youtube and the lecturer is introduced as having a BS in $subject, I always hear “bullshit in $subject”. Mind you, in one I saw the other day, I’m pretty sure that the BS really did stand for bullshit.

      • Posted March 27, 2019 at 10:41 am | Permalink

        Then there’s PhD == piled higher and deeper.

        • Posted March 27, 2019 at 11:43 am | Permalink

          My “waves and modern physics” instructor from CEGEP (who got his degrees in the US, or at least some) put it: bullshit, more shit, piled higher and deeper. He also told the story of the inane “correction” to a lot of MS degrees to MA by the folks who compiled the faculty registry. “Must be a typo!”. Erg.

  21. Deodand
    Posted March 26, 2019 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    I find that definition of ‘Biological Determinism’ ironic since I’ve also seen documents, such as the course materials from ‘Healing from Toxic Whiteness” that make it quite clear that there people among the Woke that do in fact believe that racism is a genetic trait linked to the ‘white gene’.

  22. gravelinspector-Aidan
    Posted March 27, 2019 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    “Myth of Scarcity”.
    Hey, woke-folk, if you don’t grow it, you mine it. And at some point, the mines will run out.
    Being woke won”t change that.

    • Filippo
      Posted March 27, 2019 at 10:34 am | Permalink

      I perceive that the Woke share that world view with not a few possessed of the unlimited growth/capitalist mindset. I wonder how many Fortune 500 Movers & Shakers would deny that the Earth has a limited carrying capacity.

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted March 27, 2019 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

        Oh, they do, at regular intervals. Lunatics. Rich, dangerous lunatics.

  23. JB
    Posted March 27, 2019 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    I’ve had discussions with people before who insist their “definitions” are the only correct ones. They’ll offer a definition that smuggles in their political views and when I point out that other people may have other views, they simply state that every other viewpoint is white supremacy or sexism. There is no room for discussion.

  24. KD
    Posted March 27, 2019 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    The problem of secularism is that the forms of religiosity persist, whether the institutional structures or rituals go away.

    Here we have a work of dogmatic theology in the form of a “Woke Catechism” and a basis for heresy charges against anyone who won’t accept the Woke Dogma. It’s little different from the Spanish Inquisition, although they aren’t torturing people into confessions, yet.

%d bloggers like this: