What the Left Hates Above All Else

What the left hates above all else is a person with dignity and self-respect. This may seem like a counter-intuitive or unfair statement.  But the argument for this claim turns on reason, and the proper employment of language.

In the leftist’s view, all those who do not share his grand vision believes himself to be “above” society. Those who stand outside his group, and desire not to be a part of it, is condemned by the leftist as someone who feels himself to be “above” it.

This petty, juvenile contempt translates into a hatred of “hierarchy,” or “patriarchy”; and thus, intentionally or unintentionally, of order in society. It must be pointed out that a modicum of order is necessary for true freedom.

True freedom means an individual decides what to do with his life; this is in fundamental opposition to the totalitarian leftist’s plans for that individual.  A person is just a means to an end for the leftist, and has no inherent value in and of himself.

The great majority’s rational rejection of the left’s unhinged views has only served to radicalize the left, which subsequently translated its views into esoteric doctrines and oblique programs to subvert the will of its popular opposition.  Due to being historically outnumbered, the left has been driven to infiltrate “the system,” sloughing off all morality of the formerly “bourgeois” system, such as honesty, decency, and forgiveness in the process. The leftist has become the master of patron-client organization building, rewarding those who are “down for the cause,” while punishing those who remain oblivious or unsympathetic to the leftist’s inhumane agenda.

The leftist who reads this entry will immediately dismiss it, unable to separate his self-image from his position vis-a-vis objective reality. Dismissing logic, reason, and anyone who does not share his view, the leftist insulates himself from reality, both economically and socially, while surrounding himself with like-minded individuals who share his contempt for outsiders. The left’s sequestering into monastical environments promotes an “us-them” mentality, very similar to the kind found in cults.

This is not how a leftist would communicate his irrational hatred of an independent person to himself, however; for his lexicon has been shaped by the left’s philosophical forbears to cast all such personal characteristics mentioned above in terms of “selfishness,” “egotism,” “narcissism,” “greed,” or even pure “hate.”

As such, one needs to explain why the leftist is “inhumane.” The leftist pretends to care about “humanity,” without really caring about individuals. This fundamental contradiction is a grave one, for it leads the leftist to sacrifice actual living, breathing human beings for his abstract causes. The foundation of his worldview is seriously, irreconcilably flawed; and this is a deadly mistake in judgment on the leftist’s part.

Anyone who believes in something, and stands for something, is the greatest threat to the left. From the leftist’s point of view, anyone with a solidified moral code is by nature a “fanatic,” even “fascist” in mentality.

But the leftist does not realize that the code of individualism is itself a barrier to fanaticism (one can witness the tidiness and orderliness of tea party rallies, in comparison to the usual mob mentality of the left, for example). In contrast, the leftist’s opposition to entrenched morality and order leads him to seek fatal societal breakdown, resulting not in liberation or a superior order, but rather the powerlessness of members of society to defend themselves from power-hungry rulers.

A woman with her own mind, her own individualistic morality, and who exercises judgment infuriates the left because she is beyond its powers. She is unable to be easily manipulated. She is not readily subject to being reinvented in the left’s imaginary ideal. In the leftist’s eyes, these stubborn qualities alone makes her intrinsically “hateful,” “racist,” “bigoted,” “fanatical,” “uncaring,” and “uncompassionate.”

For the left, the agenda trumps all. Actual living, breathing individuals who refuse to accompany them into demonstrable political madness be damned.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “What the Left Hates Above All Else

  1. Well said. I followed the exchange between you and the other fellow who wrote about how Jesus wants us to be a member of a community force not a me, me me force. I had to laugh at his depiction of the “individual” who used the community in order to succeed in his own selfish ventures, that rat! The visceral loathing for the character was so over the top, I almost thought he was joking.

    Where was the flip side of that story? Where was the story line of the individual who played the system, went to public school, even a year of public college, fathered several children out of wedlock by several different women, dropped out school, dealt drugs, never worked an honest day in his life yet as an able-bodied young man of 26, stands in the food line at a city homeless shelter, eating the food, wearing the new off-the-rack clothes donated by the local retail stores, defecating on the porches of the homes near the church instead of using the port-o-potties provided for that purpose? Why was that example not given? Because it reveals what blinded charity and mindless community programs do to an individual. The liberal program mind-set robs a person, as you said, of all self-respect and dignity.

    As a Catholic, I come up against this social justice mindset often, even amongst some clergy. Of all faiths, the Catholic faith should be most wary of what Socialism and Communism has in store for religion yet time after time, the twisted logic of social justice inevitably attracts those souls who want to be a part of something big. The big community projects tout the maximum effect. This quantity factor lures the liberal minded Christian and secularist alike because they feel they can do the most by giving to large swathes of the community with the least amount of individual effort…that whole many hands makes for light work bullshit.

    Then there are the people who want to help the needy but they are focused not on helping the masses, but rather taking time with one individual in need, applying their individual talents to better one person’s situation. This approach requires patience and much more work but those scenarios tend to have a long-lasting positive effect on the person in need than the one-size fits all approach of mass charity.

    I’m convinced most liberals wouldn’t be liberal at all if they could be shown the big picture and the actual effects their big programs have on big numbers of those they claim to help. For whatever reason, their mind doesn’t process facts that way. They are comforted being a part of a mass effort where the results are creatively tallied on a piece of paper showing the multitude of faceless needy they are told they are saving.

    The liberal worker bees don’t realize the debilitating effect hand-outs have on an individual. Once a person gets to the point that a hand-out is expected, that person is 99% unsalvageable as a productive, happy, self-sufficient human. This approach, as you noted, seems to be madness, especially when these do gooders claim to want all to be happy. They quote scriptures and point to the good works of Jesus for their justifications of mass charity but from my study of Jesus, He did not come here to make life easier, He came to show us our purpose, each of us, our individual purpose. The liberal machine wants to strip the necessity of an individual purpose from us by making life easier, providing all of our needs. Of course, this devious trap of the Left makes things so easy that the individual has no purpose. The Left works at odds to Jesus all the while claiming to be doing His work.

    Sorry to go off on so many tangents. Your last couple blog posts really got me thinking! Thanks.

  2. so “This petty, juvenile contempt translates into a hatred of “hierarchy,” or “patriarchy”; and thus, intentionally or unintentionally, of order in society” but also ” True freedom means an individual decides what to do with his life; this is in fundamental opposition to the totalitarian leftist’s plans for that individual.” Those sadly are mutually exclusive conditions. Nevermind that hierarchial structures means that someone has more power than you (also usually more welath)) and that since there is clearly someone in power who is making decisions FOR you means that you won’t be able to make your own decisions. I believe that people should be allowed as much freedom as they would like until their action affect others, at which every should have equal power to decide what should be. True concensus cannot be had in any place where the representatives are not on equal footing. Also, it should be noted that the whole socialist ethic, does center on those who work, so…. it’s not really a charity thing. Not that as a socialist you wouldn’t take care of those unable to work, but it isn’t the goal of socialism to make a bum out of everyone. It is simply to ensure in fact that the only method of gaining wealth is through work, and that if you work an work hard, no one other than you will benefit from that labor. You would work to benefit yourself, not to the profit of some capitalist with 5 cars and a multi-millon dollar house. You have socialism confused. You should become unconfused.

    1. “I believe that people should be allowed as much freedom as they would like until their action affect others, at which every should have equal power to decide what should be.”

      We are all affected by others and have an affect on others. There are always going to be some people who are going to be offended by being affected by others, no matter how small or trivial. Who decides how much is acceptable? The offender or the offendee? And who decides what “equal power” is?

  3. Amsocialist, thanks sincerely for the contribution. Trust me, I’m not confused about socialism. What I respect about your post is that you appear to be a principled socialist, which is much different than the nihilistic, mush mouthed, morally relativistic sophistry I usually see out of the left. While I have contempt for those who use language to destroy language, and who muddle the discussion because they either don’t really hold to any ideals, and are simply seeking power for the sake of power, or inherently believe that those who don’t hold their views are incapable of understanding their views. I don’t fall into the category of a person who doesn’t understand socialism; I understand it on a theoretical, historical, and personal level.

    There are classic rebuttals to your arguments. Perhaps you are familiar with them, but I want you to know, I am not concocting them out of whole cloth to serve the purpose of edifying my worldview against someone who is challenging it. I don’t belief in such self-deception.

    1. Hierarchy and order.

    Marx himself did not call for equality, but a “dictatorship of the proletariat” based on the worker’s “ownership of the means of production.” While many socialists believe such a program leads to a classless society, and ultimately to equality, and therefore, greater freedom, the historical record shows that the fostering of anarchy leads not to the establishment of a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” but the dictatorship of the revolutionary vanguard as a type of oligarchy. (We are assuming Marx’s prediction that socialism will come about in historical deterministic fashion to be demonstrably false.) The explanation for the turn from a movement ostensibly driven to “liberate” the working class (from what, in actuality, is really not clear) to mass repression and then oppression is simple. As socialist Robert Michels points out, there is a tendency for even the revolutionary leadership to install a dictatorship in order to “preserve the gains of the revolution.” In reality, they are entrenching themselves in power, for it is human nature to act in one’s self-interest. There is no ideological maneuver to cut this gordian knot. That is why America’s founders established divided government – to prevent the rise of tyrannies.

    What makes freedom real in practice is the availability of a multiplicity of real world choices, which can be freely pursued by the individual, that is to say, uncoerced by other self-interested individuals. Absolute freedom, or the ability to live free without material constraints, is impossible, because those who would bestow the material livelihood on other individuals would seek to control them for their own self-interested ends.

    Therefore, what is needed for freedom to exist in any meaningful way in an economy is a competitive environment, where the means of production are both constrained and directed by society, and the proven mechanism for achieving this is the market. The financial value of an individual is dictated by the value he or she adds and can add to society. This may sound cruel to the socialist who believes in absolute equality, who wants to see all people equally educated and capable, and equally “valued” by society. Of course, this cannot be achieved by building everyone up, but dragging down the best and brightest, particularly if the regime is serious about economic equality.

    Another problem with the socialist argument is that there IS a difference between the economic aspect of life and the purely social aspect. I am not denying there is a connection. What is usually beyond the expectations or conception of the socialist is that the less well off do have happy lives, on the whole, in a free market capitalist system; people can be loved for non-economic reasons, and there is more general happiness because there is more general wealth (which is not stolen, or extorted from the working class, pace the Labor Theory of Value). The economy leads the productive towards a better standard of living…there are good reasons for this, and they defy Marx’s analysis.

    The Iron Law of Wages is false. Wages do not tend towards subsistence in a capitalist economy, but rather, mass production leads to reduced prices for mass marketed goods. Surplus wages above subsistence are needed to drive the “commoditization” in an economy. Innovation flourishes in economic freedom, and the working classes who create value in an economy are compensated for such addition of value, and purchase the newly created goods on the market that ease or improve their lives. Producers thrive in a capitalist society; this is not to say, in blase totalitarian mode, that the poor are “shoved aside,” or forsaken. (Capitalist) America is the most generous nation on the earth; prosperity begets munificence and independence begets compassion. This is highly counter-intuitive for the socialist because he has a totalitarian (no slight intended here) conception of the interconnection between politics, economy, and society. Much of the harm socialists cause is by introducing politics, or coercion, into relations that should be guided by cooperation in a free economy or society.

    The psychological argument for a modicum of hierarchy derives from the Hobbesian observation that a society without a sovereign with a legal monopoly of force tends to descend into chaos or disorder or a kind of tyranny of mutual vulnerability and distrust and thus “the war of all against all.” There must be some continuity in a society for men’s mental integrity to remain in tact, and for them to be inured from the general anxiety, and resultant aggression, that comes from such vulnerability.

    2. Socialism not based on universal charity, but universal contribution to economy.

    Even if one objects to citing the National Socialist view, “Work shall set you free” (Arbeit macht frei), the policy of international socialists to force people to “work or starve” is well-known. What has become of neo-marxism, however, is to veil the socialist agenda with the veneer of compassion and charity, in order to warp, misdirect, and ultimately, collapse the capitalist economy. This leads to the establishment of a ruling class, and not of a proletariat, but rather, the self-serving intellectual “vanguard” that forces the dictatorship upon the people, including those who do not wish to participate. The abandonment of deterministic Marxism, and the general adoption of Marxist-Leninist strategy in the long view, and in the mid-term, Gramscian strategy complemented by Alinskyite tactics, means that the left has adopted the dictatorial view, and article of faith, that radicals can force people to be free.

    3. Intentions and results.

    The intention of socialists to improve the quality of life of all people is an assertion that cannot be proven by context. This is because their ideology forces them to corrupt society, to destroy the economy, and to subvert the politics. I am conceding that socialists believe capitalism to be a sort of existential evil, responsible for the woes of man; but in actuality, it is a means of voluntary exchange for human beings, and by extension into the legal order, voluntary association becomes the primary basis of relations, rather than economy by dependency, and thus, coercion. When one surveys the world, those economies based on coercion are either parasitical upon capitalist economies for their incomes (one of many examples is the USSR’s reliance upon importing wheat from the US), or stagnating from lack of risk-taking (because entrepreneurship threatens the existing caste of society). While socialists view capitalism as a kind of all-encompassing world society, on the contrary, there are a multitude of societies that are impoverished, chaotic, and despotic; they lack both freedom, and its necessary complement, (relatively) free market capitalism.

    The great escape from the historical record devised by Marxists, more specifically, German historians, is historicism. It is boils down to an assertion that history does not matter. But surely there is continuity of certain kinds in human history, including the general continuity of human nature, deriving from man’s biological composition, and his mental state of free will, only enabled by the faculty of reason. Reason is thus the great enemy of the modern left; and while classical Marxists do display a kind of reason, even though underneath this surface is a faith encapsulated by historical determinism, neomarxists are completely mentally and morally corrupt.

    My point of view is reasonably well-sketched out here, and sufficient to say, it is not baseless. I understand both classical Marxism and neo-marxism, can distinguish between the two (though some socialists themselves may conflate them, leading to contradictions), and have my own principled reasons, based on historical experience and theoretical awareness, to reject both doctrines as fanciful and in the last word, oppressive.

    1. I do not intend to say that you arguements are baseless, or even necessarily that they are false, though I believe some of them to be. Unlike most socialists (I’ll pay for this) I’m not very ideological, I have particular goals in mind, and some idea as to how to best accomplish them. I first believe that the capitalist systems fails to properly compensate the worker for his labor. Namely becuase in a capitalist system a small number of people control a large portion of the wealth, they derive this wealth mainly from owning corporations. In these corporations, workers produce a good, or perform a service, however, the product of this labor is not given in full to the worker. While you are correct that in many cases wages will be above “subsistence” I don’t think that paying people merely enough not to die, is proper compensation for there work, especially when they recieve so little only because someone else take their gains. This is why I propose in some fashion that workers-colectives arise, and that these workers collectives form unions in such a way as to assist in the creation of more worker collectives. These workers collectives should have a policy such that they have no management, so that at least 90% of the decisions are made by some openly democratic form. These can be councils or open elections, it is understood that some sort of framework will be necessary, but it must be structure so as to prevent to raise of a co-ordinationist class as in the former soviet bloc and elsewhere.

      Another proposal on a similar vein, is the end to state capitalism in the United States. Which, replicates the same ownership structures as capitalism, only the names of the benefitting groups have changed. I think that corporation like the TVA, The post office, municipal water, power, and gas copanies, all need to come under the control of the workers and the people in an arrangment similar to the afformentioned workers collectives. In this system, the workers would decide matter pertaining to themsleves in a democratic fashion, and until their actions affected the citizens, then in open democratic elections, the people could whether for instance they wanted a new water treatment plant built, how it will be built, and where. On a National and local scale such a thing could happen throught online voting, with discussion perhaps caried out in chat rooms and/or discussion boards. The logistics of this method of argument require some refinement before implementation, but technology is constantly improving.

      A third and final proposal is that the senate be replaced with a “Magna Ecclesia” mirroring the one in Greece, a council of all citizens. In this case, they would have final say over anything passed in the house, and unlimited powers to change legislation as they saw fit. The purpose of this change would be to counteract the plutocracy inherent in any representative system. Since these officials must spend long periods of time campaigning, and usually receive little in actual pay from being in the legislative body itself, it creates an environment where it is benefical to either have been wealth, or to become wealthy. Witha council of citizens as it chief body, our congress, would then hopefully represent the will of the people better. Of course this experiment most likely will occur at the state level first, if it succeedes, I think america will greatly benefit from direct democracy. The voting in the system, would of course be electronic and a number of logistical issues will have to be over come before it can be implemented.

      The point of sharing these plans is that, this is the socialist future I envision for America, not some sort of dystopia, or even a utopia, but something that is practical, functional (I hope), and do-able. It’s not a radical change, it’s really a small departure from what we have now, the real goal to me, in the short term is a market socialist economy similar to that of Yugoslavia (minus the dictator and all the state intervention). Also, the beginning of direct democracy in America. My ultimate goal is to create a future in which the power in completely in the hands of everyone, not just a few people. And these are examples of the ways which I think this can best be brought about. Especially since we live in a society which has an elected government I do not feel that any armed revolution is appropriate we have laws and we do have some voice, and I think it is best used. I am completely committed to freedom.

      I thank you greatly for you gratitude Rogueoperator

      1. Amsocialist, I appreciate your detailed explanation of how, in practice, you would like to see the empowerment of workers over their own lives, and people to have a more equitable share in the benefits of the economy. There does seem to be a disparity between the work input and benefits reaped in most major corporations. The misunderstanding of Marx, which I don’t imply that you misunderstand this concept, is that people are compensated for what firms believe they are worth in a labor market. People are not worth the same when it comes to labor value, and therefore, should not have equal say over the running of a business or manufacturing operation. Goods and services are of different value, just like the labor value (not intrinsic worth) varies by worker. Entrepreneurs, firms, corporations, create the products and manufacture them – products don’t come from out of nowhere. Investors take the risks, entrepreneurs take the time developing products – this is all a part of how a good or service comes to be produced.

        The key point is that people are not equal in actuality, but should be equal before the law. The way to preserve people’s equality before the law is to check the state – not the market, not corporations – the state. The state dominates and re-directs corporations, not vice versa. Markets will take care of corporations, along with citizen monitoring of the institutions of justice at the state and local level. Principally, corporations don’t capture the state, the state captures corporations, and twists them to their own purposes. The checks are as follows: Separate the state from economy. Government intervention in the economy should be forbidden. Private property. This prevents people from being taken advantage of by the state and corporations, and even any democratic polity. Democracies can be as dictatorial as any more supposedly hierarchical political system. Market. This puts economic transactions on a purely voluntary basis. People can work or not work. Civil society. People should be charitable on a voluntary basis, and this has a salutary effect on people’s compassionate nature. When charity is usurped by the state and reflects coercive extraction and redistribution, people lose their civic spirit, and this leads to alienation and anomie. The ties between people are severed, and redirected towards the redistributing agency.

        Briefly, this is the best I can address your point of view, which is founded on different values and assumptions than I hold. I respect you for making it clear what you value, and for articulating the practical ways of achieving the kind of world you would like to see. Cheers, RO

  4. “Where was the flip side of that story? Where was the story line of the individual who played the system, went to public school, even a year of public college, fathered several children out of wedlock by several different women, dropped out school, dealt drugs, never worked an honest day in his life yet as an able-bodied young man of 26, stands in the food line at a city homeless shelter, eating the food, wearing the new off-the-rack clothes donated by the local retail stores, defecating on the porches of the homes near the church instead of using the port-o-potties provided for that purpose? Why was that example not given? Because it reveals what blinded charity and mindless community programs do to an individual. The liberal program mind-set robs a person, as you said, of all self-respect and dignity.

    As a Catholic, I come up against this social justice mindset often, even amongst some clergy. Of all faiths, the Catholic faith should be most wary of what Socialism and Communism has in store for religion yet time after time, the twisted logic of social justice inevitably attracts those souls who want to be a part of something big. The big community projects tout the maximum effect. This quantity factor lures the liberal minded Christian and secularist alike because they feel they can do the most by giving to large swathes of the community with the least amount of individual effort…that whole many hands makes for light work bullshit.

    Then there are the people who want to help the needy but they are focused not on helping the masses, but rather taking time with one individual in need, applying their individual talents to better one person’s situation. This approach requires patience and much more work but those scenarios tend to have a long-lasting positive effect on the person in need than the one-size fits all approach of mass charity.

    I’m convinced most liberals wouldn’t be liberal at all if they could be shown the big picture and the actual effects their big programs have on big numbers of those they claim to help. For whatever reason, their mind doesn’t process facts that way. They are comforted being a part of a mass effort where the results are creatively tallied on a piece of paper showing the multitude of faceless needy they are told they are saving.

    The liberal worker bees don’t realize the debilitating effect hand-outs have on an individual. Once a person gets to the point that a hand-out is expected, that person is 99% unsalvageable as a productive, happy, self-sufficient human. This approach, as you noted, seems to be madness, especially when these do gooders claim to want all to be happy. They quote scriptures and point to the good works of Jesus for their justifications of mass charity but from my study of Jesus, He did not come here to make life easier, He came to show us our purpose, each of us, our individual purpose. The liberal machine wants to strip the necessity of an individual purpose from us by making life easier, providing all of our needs. Of course, this devious trap of the Left makes things so easy that the individual has no purpose. The Left works at odds to Jesus all the while claiming to be doing His work.”

    I didn’t think this account, given by a true witness, to be tangential in any way. I found myself agreeing with line after line, observation after observation. What I gather from your post is that it is important to grasp the psychology of the left; its rationalization and self-deception. I really appreciate the contribution, Arva.

    1. I am a person who signed onto the Socialist ideal as a youth, especially the” less work for more effect” aspect until I started seeing the “dream” was resulting in the opposite of its stated intent.

      Some basic realities I have witnessed as a person who has relatives subject to a Socialist medical system in Ireland, the Socialist standards for “care” is anything but care. The product offered under Socialist medicine is not fit for a beast let alone a human being. Choice of care is non-existent. It’s the luck of the draw and believe me, there is no such thing as the “Luck of the Irish” when it comes to their health care system.

      I’ve come to realize the Socialist ideal is possible in small groups of people all of one mindset, devoted to the cause. Socialism, under certain conditions, can exist within a Capitalist society but the reverse, not so much. Going underground is an entreprenuer’s only course of action within a Socialist system. This leads to all sorts of ills that an open free-market rids itself of naturally.

      Capitalism thrives off of differing mindsets and beliefs whereas Socialism withers and fails when differing viewpoints are introduced. Where has Socialism as a government brought its people sustainable prosperity? None that I’m aware of. In fact, though Socialists tend to gripe about the rich Capitalists gaining all the benefits off the backs of the poor workers, it is the elitist, more greedy, more concentrated group of Socialist politicos that live high on the hog in a Socialist system while the workers toil away for an equal standard of living, “equal” being to a prized pig at best.

      Of the successful individuals I know, none of them were born rich. In fact, some were certifiably poor as children but in this country they were able to work, risk and succeed beyond their dreams, helping and hiring many others on the way. The same could never happen in a Socialist scenario. Humans thrive in struggle and through achievement. Though Socialism has an admirable mantra of “fairness”, fairness is not ever going to exist where humans are involved. What is fair to me is not fair to you. Socialism works fairly for bees and a couple other species but not so great for the creature called human.

  5. rogueoperator – I would like to comment in length, and will be back to read more. I followed the link over from James Board’s blog. And I must say you are very eloquent with mostly solid arguments. Indeed, my only areas of contention are nits to pick, not any larger issue.

    Lilke you, I respect amsocialist for his civility and willingness to debate the issues logically, without descending into a “kill the messenger” mentality that is unfortunately all to common from the left (I prefer to use left right for the broad categorization due to the different meaning of liberal/conservative in other countries). While I find many faults with his arguments, I can address the faults, not the man. However, I will read your response before getting back to them.

    Sorry to be so long winded for a short pop over, but there is one point I wanted to make. And it is a nit, not a nut. But the reality of the left is not “counter-intuitive”. That would imply that it does not follow from an understanding of their goals. But as you have pointed out, it easily follows from their goals that the individual is by itself only a means to the end, and therefore, each one is essentially worthless (it is only en-masse that they have value).

    I will stop back by when I have more time (perhaps later in the day – working on a nasty trojan on a Priest’s computer – no, not the one I am responding from). Great blog and best of luck with it!

  6. I am adding you to my Blog Rolls at Voting American and Village of the Banned my friend. Your work here is an inspiration to us all. You are also invited to join us in our Private Club at Village of the Banned. This is a separate site seen only by members. If you would like access to this Club let me know and I will email you a link and code you in so you can comment there also.

  7. Your work here is fascinating – I appreciate your use of language. As I am always open to new facets of thought and intelligent use of language in the expression of such, ha! I’ll be back! 🙂 Subscribed!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s