💥 Trainwreck Anisa Riyadh Jomha / @anisajomha & iDubbbz / Ian Kane Jomha / Ian Kane Washburn / "Anisa's husband" / Scorched Legume / "Poo-Pants Swastika Boy" - Anisa posting her bald nudes on OnlyFans even when married to Ian and thirsting over Hasan while her husband iDubbbz the Content Cuck/Simp/THE RAPED/ etc. watches

How Long Will Anisa Continue to Stream?

  • Total voters
    661
  • Poll closed .
the mental image of maureen and anus frantically writing shit on reddit while her alzheimer riddled husband is eating gravel on their backyard is pretty funny
 
Blue Miaplacidus said:
I do not like labeling accounts "X-alts". It happens in every thread. Unless there is actual evidence circumstantial or otherwise to tie someone to an alt account it just makes us look bad. Taking notice and archiving ballriders and alogs alike is fine, but saying a random account is a lolcow alt is a bad habit that happens a lot, and more often than not turns out to be incorrect.

KinoCasino, Hasan, h3, and Anisa all have extremely parasocial deranged followers who will spend their waking hours fighting for their champion. I mean just look at Anisa-and-I's mods.
Click to expand...
I'm reasonably confident u/planetprison is not Anisa. Just some absolutely internet-poisoned idiot.

After a bit of digging, the account seems to have started off as a neverending Sam Harris a-log. Which I am generally in favor of until you realize it's because Sam Harris wasn't woke enough 9-5 years ago.

The Sam Harris subreddit even seemed to recognize how annoying it was six years ago:

1761319201164.png

There's a bunch of just constant bitching by planetprison back then:

1761319290292.png

1761319431314.png

1761319741792.png

1761319662325.png

1761319556602.png

1761319357788.png

1761319497498.png

1761320445664.png

But I just don't see this stuff being Anisa from 8 years ago. 8 years ago Ian was still making content cops and calling Ricegum "a little faggot" and "salt and vinigga". It's just not Anisa-like.

Like no way Anisa was tweaking out over Coleman Hughes seven years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/9352n6/coleman_hughes_is_bad_for_the_discourse/

Coleman Hughes is bad for the discourse​



Because of his appearance on WU I decided to go back and read some of Coleman Hughes' older articles, and I was stunned by just how poorly argued and ignorant they are. This article in particular reminded me of the arguments you hear from right wing hucksters like Dinesh D'Souza and Charlie Kirk http://quillette.com/2018/04/24/kanye-west-future-black-conservatism/

I'm going to highlight the most egregious parts and argue against the framing and arguments put forward.

On April 21st, Kanye West sent a tweet out to his 13.4 million followers that read: “I love the way Candace Owens thinks.” A celebrity endorsing his favorite political pundit is hardly unusual, but one of the most famous rappers of all time endorsing a black, pro-Trump firebrand like Owens is a once-in-a-lifetime event. Owens has taken stances against Black Lives Matter, feminism, and various other causes championed by the Left and, although she doesn’t follow the Republican party line on every issue, she has advocated for tax cuts, personal responsibility, and many other traditionally right-wing values. The core of her message is that there’s a stubborn refusal—among blacks and whites alike—to let go of the narrative that blacks are continually beleaguered by white racism. What we need, according to Owens, is a new story about what black America can be, which looks toward a bright future instead of clinging to an ugly past. It’s easy to see why West—a man with grandiose visions of his own future, who considers himself to be our generation’s Shakespeare—would prefer Owens’s message of black self-creation to the prevailing leftist view that modern systems of oppression recapitulate the overt injustices of the past and therefore constrain black potential.
Click to expand...
Right off the bat we're off to a horrible start. To present Candace Owens as just some person holding right wing political beliefs is a whitewashing of both her character and her views.

Candace Owens is a person that first came into prominence with a crowdfunding campaign for a website called Social Autopsy where people could anonymously submit personal information about social media accounts, that could then be viewed by others in a searchable database, essentially a doxing database. Predictably she got a lot of backlash on the internet for this campaign. With absolutely no evidence she claimed this backlash is some kind of insane conspiracy against her by a few people on the left instead of just a lot of people thinking her idea was shit, which was the case http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/04/how-social-autopsy-fell-for-gamergate-trutherism.html

A little while later she had started reinventing herself as a right wing pundit. She went on The Rubin Report where she explained to a nodding Rubin that all these people sending her hate over her doxing database were left wing trolls bankrolled by Hillary Clinton. Clinton desperately needed to stop her because Candace's doxing database was about to uncover that all the racist trolls on the internet were actually secretly funded by the Clinton machine to make right wingers look bad. In response to this batshit insane conspiracy theory Rubin responded the way any classical liberal intellectual would and nodded his head in agreement before moving on to another question.

Candace Owens would go on to make many Infowars appearances where she spouted insane shit every time, as one does on Infowars. She's a fierce defender of Alex Jones, a natural match for her considering her own affinity for conspiracy theories.

Her actual output when it's not easily discredited conspiracy theories consists fully of vapid right wing talking points that she can't defend when facing the minimum of pushback. As demonstrated in this clip where Joe Rogan of all people completely demolishes her on climate change and she has absolutely no arguments to come back with to support the talking points. Even after this embarrassing appearance she still spouts the same climate change denial talking points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lD29jqH078

In short Candace Owens is a conspiracy theorist, con artist and empty headed pundit that shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone, and by presenting her as some kind of reasonable conservative, Coleman Hughes is poisoning the discourse and pushing it towards the crazy right and away from reality.

Like his support for Trump (which he later withdrew), West’s support for Owens has been covered more favorably by the Right than by the Left. Conservative media seizes upon black conservatives as evidence that conservatism has nothing in principle to do with racism, even if the dwindling number of committed anti-black racists in this country tend to vote Republican. By contrast, liberal and leftist media do their best to ignore black conservatives and to pretend they don’t exist, lest they disrupt the narrative that the Left has a moral monopoly on race issues. The fact that Kanye West is a rapper and a black icon—credentials that ‘should’ place him on the Left—makes his fondness for conservatism more disruptive still.
Click to expand...
Hughes goes on to talk about Kanye West without mentioning some very pertinent facts. The most striking thing about Kanye's support of Trump has to be just how lacking it is in any kind of substance or actual arguments. To this day no one can say what kind of policies Kanye West actually supports. The closest thing he came to making any actual political arguments was on a TMZ appearance where he argued that slavery is a choice. Something he said after this article was published so it's fair that it's not in the article.

The article goes on to argue that black people can be conservatives and some people on the left have different concerns than the majority of the black population. I have some disagreements here, especially with the framing using Kanye and Candace as proponents as some new form of brave conservatism the left can't dismiss, but to not make this post too long I will skip to the last couple of paragraphs that I find to be the most revealing.

But if blacks are almost as likely to be conservative as liberal, then why do they vote for Democratic candidates in overwhelming numbers? As Johnson points out, “No Democratic presidential nominee has received less than 82 percent of the black vote since Kennedy’s 68 percent in 1960” and “93 percent voted for the reelection of Barack Obama.” Johnson’s research suggests that the answer has nothing to do with blacks preferring liberal policies: “[W]hen presented [with] two candidates who have identical policy positions and who are running under identical societal conditions, blacks still strongly prefer a Democratic candidate over a Republican.” [emphasis mine] Johnson suspects that the true cause of black loyalty to the Democratic party is the general perception that Democrats push civil rights legislation and that Republicans don’t.
Click to expand...
The answer to this paragraph is simple. Black people are right. Democrats push civil rights legislation and Republicans don't. This has been true since the civil rights era and it remains true with Republicans currently pushing for legislation to suppress voting from minority voters.

But the belief that the Democratic party has a better civil rights record than the party of Abraham Lincoln is dubious at best. As the sociologist Musa Al-Gharbi has pointed out, it was the Republican Dwight Eisenhower who actually enforced civil rights legislation and his Democratic predecessor Harry Truman who was largely unable to do so. And for all the criticism that has been levelled at Ronald Reagan’s War on Drugs, Bill Clinton’s crime bill has proved to be hugely unpopular as well. Nevertheless, the perception—born of Lyndon Johnson’s sweeping civil rights legislation in the 1960s—that the Democrats have been the good guys all along has been enough to win the overwhelming majority of the black vote in every presidential election for the past five decades.
Click to expand...
If you're going to argue the Democrats have not been great on protecting the rights of minorities, then you're not going to get an argument from me. But what is left out here is that the Republicans were worse every step of the way. If you think the Democrats were bad on any of the issues mentioned here then you have to think the Republicans were worse. You can't argue Clinton was too "hard on crime" but also argue the Republicans were good on that issue. The framing here is either dishonest or ignorant.

This isn't some small thing. If you're going to argue the Democrats have been bad for minorities and ask why more minorities aren't voting Republican, then the omission of the decades of systemic civil rights opposition and racism in the Republican party does make your entire article invalid. To get into this topic and not mention any the attempts to disenfranchise black people by the GOP going on as we speak, let alone the decades of opposition to civil and voting rights preceding the current day, or the racist campaign strategies as first formulated in the southern strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy completely invalidates the article by omitting the most pertinent facts answering the questions asked in the article.

This article is an attempt at creating false equivalences between the Democrats and Republicans. It's dumbening down the discourse by inviting people like Candace Owens in as if they're honest commentators that should be taken seriously. Articles like this makes people more ignorant and dumber. It's poisoning the discourse and moving us backwards.

The idea that this undergrad has more insightful things to say about race issues than Ta-Nehisi Coates is absolutely preposterous. This is another case of Sam Harris supporting someone similar to Dave Rubin who primarily functions to whitewash the right wing and make the discourse dumber.

Or making posts like these:

1761319980478.png

1761320003962.png
1761320023604.png

Anisa barely knows anything about politics. This type of sperging is just not like her -- even if the directionality of the posts align with her purported worldview at this time.

Conclusion: Almost certainly not Anisa

Edit: formatting
 
Last edited:
One of the worst things about Anus getting knocked up is that we will have to endure nine months of suffering through Mr. Jomha saying "we're pregnant" like a total bitch-made faggot.
 
Imagine having a million people go "yeah fuck you" and unsub...a million+ people universally not liking you. That number is boggling my mind and I wonder if Anisa's husband has enough brain function from the CTEs to comprehend that. That would be total ego death for most normal people, I would think. I hope we get a cope from him on how that's a good thing, actually
 
anon101x said:
I say that because I’m curious to know…. If Anisa even recognizes that she’s not even part of the conversation?
Click to expand...
She would never admit it but deep down she knows. All the little fish know but everyone pretends to be hot shit and relevant, the Twitch sphere is basically internet LA.
 
Hillary Clinton's Ass said:
Does Maureen hates Anisa? I mean, those are some try hard posts but damn.
Click to expand...
Part of me believes Anisa put her mother up to this.
And either Maureen is so retarded she makes the attempt look forced and fake, or the perhaps funnier option that she took the opportunity to make it look fake and gay on purpose all while being able her daughter a retarded roasty cunt because she was asked to.

Either way it's someone in the Jomha camp.
 
Leo Frank said:
Nigger is back with a new account blowing up Anisa. It’s getting darker. What a coincidence it happened a few hours ago. Maureen is a psychopath.

View attachment 8072758
View attachment 8072759
View attachment 8072760
View attachment 8072761
View attachment 8072762
View attachment 8072763
View attachment 8072765
View attachment 8072766
Click to expand...

I am out of the loop. Is there speculation that this nigger account is Maureen like the mom in that Netflix documentary?

 
TigBaker said:
I love her tweets lol
View attachment 8074166
Click to expand...
The only thing I've ever seen mentioned here about Anusa's dad is that he clearly wasn't a strict hardcore muslim father she tried to portray him as and that he seemed like a nice guy in that one video from her youtube channel. So this tweet along with the previous one (about her getting special attention from her dad when she was 8-14).
I get what she's trying to do but even typing it out... alleging that your husband and father of your children is a pedophile for the sake of internet drama... My god. She was known to be a lunatic before but this is next level.
 
Louie G said:
I get what she's trying to do but even typing it out... alleging that your husband and father of your children is a pedophile for the sake of internet drama... My god. She was known to be a lunatic before but this is next level.
Click to expand...
Well, Anisa had to get it from somewhere didn't she?
 
Louie G said:
I get what she's trying to do but even typing it out... alleging that your husband and father of your children is a pedophile for the sake of internet drama... My god. She was known to be a lunatic before but this is next level.
Click to expand...
Just wait until you see the shit Anisa says about Ian once they split.
  • forced her to do onlyfans
  • shit himself while she was trying to peg him
  • racist
  • shadman fan / "im not saying he's a pedphil but like.." (while downplaying/not mentioning her own shadman connections)
  • wanted her to get blacked to own le heckin conservatives
  • "Ian was molested as a child"
  • piss fetish
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom