i forgot

i meant to post this in yesterday’s linkfest, and i just plumb forgot. from a new blogger — davani:

The Anglosphere’s Values Incompatible with Old-World Ones

“HBD bloggers such as Peter Frost and Steve Sailer lament the rise of a ‘brave new world’ in the West in which multiculturalism, diversity, and immigration increasingly take hold. But let’s ask where these cultural notions come from. They come from the very same Anglo-Saxon genes which these authors probably share themselves. In effect, protesting against New-World values (made possible by the Anglosphere and its culture) may be equivalent to protesting against their own DNA….”

he’s got a point (i think).

(note: comments do not require an email. anglo-saxons.)

Advertisements

47 Comments

  1. Well, if our DNA is causing us to do stupid things, we’re morally obligated to protest against it. If it turns out that some races or ethnicities have a predisposition towards violence, or nepotistic corruption, are they just supposed to say’ what the Hell, can’t fight DNA” and let ‘er rip? Of course not. If Anglos have genetic traits that might lead to social suicide, we’ve got to fight them all the way.

    Reply

  2. Indeed. Excellent newcomer to the hbd/steveo/blogosphere.

    When I started blogging about human biodiversity, I had the attitude that if I am going to take this stuff seriously, I would have to take it all the way. Which is, if genetics explains some of the differences between large-scale categorical groups of people, such as Europeans with respect to sub-Saharan Africans or with respect to East Asians or Amerindians, then there is no reason that it couldn’t also explain the differences between smaller groups of people, such as between Norwegians and Italians or between English and Russians—or even the differences between groups of people within the same society, such as between liberals and conservative Americans. I am a strong hereditarian through and through. That is the primary track I’ve taken on my blog, and, as I still see, that notion still hasn’t sunk in with everyone in the HBD-sphere. In for a penny, in for a pound. You have been one of the few HBD bloggers that take this view, hence, why you’ve been such an inspiration! :)

    Even with this knowledge, we still take the track that we take, trying to inform the masses. We hope to appeal to reason to some degree, I think. This may not necessarily be the most fruitful, as people tend to mold facts to fit their ideology, as we see with the Swedes on the biological reality of gender:

    Androgyny advocates like our Swedish friends have heard such stories many times, and they have an answer. They acknowledge that sex differences have at least some foundation in biology, but they insist that culture can intensify or diminish their power and effect. Even if Eliza is prompted by nature to interact with a train in a stereotypical female way, that is no reason for her parents not to energetically correct her.

    That’s the kind of stuff that makes you want to throw your hands up. Ironically, it wouldn’t matter if NW-Euros believed crazy things if those crazy attitudes weren’t also self-destructive. But, what can you do, right? I think that’s the biggest take away, and a point where we in the HBD world need to concentrate hard on…

    Reply

  3. @t. kitty – “Well, if our DNA is causing us to do stupid things, we’re morally obligated to protest against it.

    we are? and/or we can?

    Reply

  4. @jayman – “[I]f genetics explains some of the differences between large-scale categorical groups of people, such as Europeans with respect to sub-Saharan Africans or with respect to East Asians or Amerindians, then there is no reason that it couldn’t *also* explain the differences between smaller groups of people, such as between Norwegians and Italians or between English and Russians—or even the differences between groups of people *within* the same society, such as between liberals and conservative Americans.”

    hear, hear! (^_^) (don’t forget — i know you haven’t — all the male-female difference, too, although i feel that they’re sooooo obvious i really can’t get worked up about them.)

    speaking of the differences between liberals and conservatives, have you ever checked out this site: neuropolitics.org? it’s kinda difficult to get into if you haven’t been following it from the beginning (heh — kinda like this blog!), and i haven’t been following it for a while now, but there’s (i think) a lot of interesting stuff there. if you haven’t read anything there, i really suggest starting towards the beginning.

    @jayman – “I am a strong hereditarian through and through.”

    me, too!

    @jayman – “…that notion still hasn’t sunk in with everyone in the HBD-sphere. In for a penny, in for a pound. You have been one of the few HBD bloggers that take this view, hence, why you’ve been such an inspiration! :)”

    aww, shucks. (*^_^*)

    @jayman – “We hope to appeal to reason to some degree, I think. This may not necessarily be the most fruitful, as people tend to mold facts to fit their ideology….”

    yes. that’s why i wrote this post. except i wouldn’t be any good at that sort of thing (crafting a message for the masses), ’cause i don’t “get” them on an instinctive level. dr*t!

    Reply

  5. So, can someone explain the Swedes’ anti-science proclivities?

    Perhaps I should ask this, instead: is this perpetual attempt to obscure what their eyes tell them a movement that is the work of a small, but insistent bunch of leftist loonies whom other Swedes ignore because of their laid-back nature, or are Swedes as a group really this this anti-science or this prone to group manipulation?

    Reply

  6. Not protest against the DNA, obviously, but unless you believe that humans are gene machines pure and simple, with no volition, no capability of changing their minds, then we are obligated to struggle against the stupid, self-destructive behavior and policies that issue from this genetic inheritance. Sure, it’s anuphill fight, but whatta you gonna do?Besides, I’m not Anglo, and I don’t think Peter Frost is, either : )

    Reply

  7. @marie – “…is this perpetual attempt to obscure what their eyes tell them a movement that is the work of a small, but insistent bunch of leftist loonies whom other Swedes ignore because of their laid-back nature, or are Swedes as a group really this this anti-science or this prone to group manipulation?”

    dunno. any swedes out there who can explain this to us?

    Reply

  8. I have long been convinced of the merits of eugenics so naturally when I found out about HBD it was stuff I had already known. The major problem I have foreseen, and do not see the way it which it will EVER get around is the ‘political inccorectness’ of such a belief. Esp. with the distopia we are falling into. No one can even mention there are differences between sexes (much more obvivous than race) without getting mauled.

    Reply

  9. “or are Swedes as a group really this this anti-science or this prone to group manipulation?”

    Conformity, made worse by the increasing numbers of females in the ruling class.

    Fads rip through Sweden like a wildfire. When I used to make my annual trips to Sweden it was interesting to see what was This Year’s Fad. Last time I was there it was those shoes with rocker soles. A few years before that it was Crocs. If it’s decided ‘this is what we like’, people will follow.

    Oh Sweden you sexy exemplar!

    Reply

  10. To be honest, I think we would have to admit that the concept of mutli-culturalism was largely an Ashkenazi invention. But I am not absolutely sure about this. What seems unique about Anglo-Saxon culture, especially in the aftermath of the Holocaust and the Civil Rights revolution, and of course the mass Ashkenazi immigration between 1880 and 1920, was its inability to resist or argue against the idea of multi-culturalism in a multi-racial society. Why this carried over to Britain and Australia (but not so much Canada) is more difficult to explain.

    Reply

  11. You could say that individualism leads to an increase in the importance of abstract ideals — the ideals of the Enlightenment — as opposed to instinct or tradition in the regulation of society. Maybe it was novelty seeking (freedom, justice, and equality started to sound old after 200 years) that made the ideal of multi-culturalism attractive. Maybe we were naive and gullible in the face of some very skillful salesmen?

    Reply

  12. There is an inherent trait in western civilization, which I will sum up as “there is always a better way to do anything”. At present this trait is more pronounced in the Anglosphere and to a greater degree in the United States, where a significant percentage of the population is descended from people who self-selected to change everything in their lives by immigrating. This trait always expresses itself by trial and error and it is capable of huge errors, but up to now it does work better than anything else on the planet. Does it have a biological basis? Most probably it does. What happens when it goes wrong? It then creates forms that over time become extinct (such in my opinion is the Swedish tendency to expect little boys and girls to be identical). The contradiction pointed out here is very real, in my opinion it is actually the driving force of western civilization. Just lets remember one thing, we don’t move along, we stumble along like a blindfolded hyperactive 5 year old.

    Reply

  13. “So, can someone explain the Swedes’ anti-science proclivities?

    Perhaps I should ask this, instead: is this perpetual attempt to obscure what their eyes tell them a movement that is the work of a small, but insistent bunch of leftist loonies whom other Swedes ignore because of their laid-back nature, or are Swedes as a group really this this anti-science or this prone to group manipulation?”

    Top down social engineering from an alliance between leftists and capitalists. Capitalists want women in the workforce to push down wages and increase taxes and leftism provides the ideological cover for that. Capitalists want more immigrants to push down wages and increase taxes and leftism provides the ideological cover for that. Capitalists want to undermine nations and national sovereignty to allow free movement of capital and labour and leftism provides the ideological cover for that.

    Leftists do what they do because they (rightly) believe that all their policies will undermine the nation-state and cause a collapse from which they can rebuild their utopia.

    Basically, capitalists are playing the short-term game and leftists are trying to play the long-term game.

    Little do the leftists know that all they will do is usher in a new dark age where their kind won’t survive long and their ideology will be forever discredited.

    Reply

  14. @marie – “…is this perpetual attempt to obscure what their eyes tell them a movement that is the work of a small, but insistent bunch of leftist loonies whom other Swedes ignore because of their laid-back nature, or are Swedes as a group really this this anti-science or this prone to group manipulation?”

    dunno. any swedes out there who can explain this to us?

    I’m not Swedish, but Danish, though I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Sweden/with Swedes. They’re imho about as similar to Danes as South and North English are to one another.

    I think the proper analogy is to creationism. American Christians often do not have anything against “science”, until the moment it bumps up against The Jesus. And then they invent an explanation why they aren’t “anti-science”, and how in fact it’s the evolutionists who are anti-science. And also, they have no obligation to understand the science itself, because the discussion is not a factual one, but a moral one.

    I think that average Swede (not just a vocal minority) see racism as anti-science, and feel that any consideration of the evidence is a moral concession to the racists. Like how it is with debates on Global Warming, where you will frequently meet a “the debate is over” person. They genuinely don’t feel that they have any obligation to know anything, or to debate you on the facts, or to read your references; they feel that labeling you as a “racist” is an argument sufficient to end the discussion, and they feel no obligation to read up on any area of ignorance you point out. Understanding the argument of the “racists” is not just irrelevant… it’s a concession. Because the good Swedes already know that racism is bad.

    However tentatively you bring up these subjects with Danes or Swedes, at some point they will look at you and convey, either in spoken word or with a look or body language, that they have figured out that you are a “racist”. If they already are “racists” themselves, then the debate may continue on the premise of “two racists have united”, like discovering another homosexual in Oscar Wildes victorian England or something. If the interlocutor is not a racist himself, then the subject will be changed, while the Swede or Dane will be preparing to quietly tell his or her friends that they sussed out a “racist”. But behind this, the framework of the “racist” / “good Swede” dichotomy passes without challenge, similar to “loves Jesus” / “hates God” framework in the US a few years ago, or perhaps “loves the Jews” / “hates the Jews” exists in the US now.

    I think that the Swedes simultaneously conceive of themselves as being both pro-science, and anti-racist, and that these are two sides of the same, progressive coin. Because racism is unscientific, everyone knows that already.

    Reply

  15. I don’t think multiculturalism is a natural state for Anglo people or for anyone else. Most people them seem to despise it. It has been foisted on the population by a group of powerful elites who use fear and shame to force people to accept it, or to at least keep quiet about it.

    In a similar way ugly modern art, music and grotesque architecture is forced on society by a small group of elites even though most people hate it. Stephen Pinker says that people are genetically programmed in such a way to find a lot of this modern stuff ugly. His theory for why it became popular is that the elites wanted something to make themselves seem superior common people. Regular art no longer served this purpose after cheap methods of reproducing art were developed.

    Maybe the elites dreamed up the multicultural idea to make themselves seem morally superior to common people. In Canada Trudeau was responsible for multiculturalism, and he may have been a world leader in this respect. Around that time Canadians felt a sense of superiority to Americans since the Americans were having problems with race riots, gangs, crimes etc. (I was alive then and I remember this.) So Trudeau invited a bunch of black people from the Caribbean to move to Canada. I think the idea was to show the Americans how it was done. This may have been the attitude in Europe too. Of course all this backfired horribly and now Canada and Europe have gangs, race riots, etc. too.

    Reply

  16. If you’re a hereditarian, why would you want to craft a message for the masses? Honey Boo Boo are the masses and incapable of being interested in your message.

    Isiah’s Job by Albert J Nock is about reaching those who matter. The masses don’t matter. Best to leave them be.

    Reply

  17. @secede:

    “If you’re a hereditarian, why would you want to craft a message for the masses? Honey Boo Boo are the masses and incapable of being interested in your message.”

    Hehe…there is that.

    I suppose the counter-reasoning is that the sheep believe what the elites tell them (more or less). So we need to target primarily a particular small set of people…

    Reply

  18. @secede – “If you’re a hereditarian, why would you want to craft a message for the masses?”

    well they still vote. i didn’t say it had to be a very detailed, complex message. (~_^)

    and they ARE being fed messages now — and theyARE swallowing them.

    Reply

  19. @HBD Chick:

    “@jayman – ‘We hope to appeal to reason to some degree, I think. This may not necessarily be the most fruitful, as people tend to mold facts to fit their ideology….’

    yes. that’s why i wrote this post. except i wouldn’t be any good at that sort of thing (crafting a message for the masses), ’cause i don’t “get” them on an instinctive level.”

    My gf (well, fiancée now) has a knack for marketing, and I (half-)jokingly tell her that she might have a real career in selling the reality of HBD to the masses. I know some organizations out there would likely happily snap up someone who could relate the situation to common people, especially those on the Left of the political spectrum.

    Reply

  20. This is hogwash. I’m sorry, the same whites who beat blacks in submission, crushed the irish, stomped the french, scared the germans, nuked the japs, burnt berlin, and wiped out the amerindians are now, genetically destined to move to happy-fun-land where everyone gets along, yay? Look! I like multiculturism, so all the things my ancestors did was some sort of blip in our nice genes!

    horsepucky.

    Peace is a luxury good. We have enjoyed it, as we were rich. we are losing the richness, wasting it on affirmative action, increased environmentalism and other feel good waste. when the cupboard is bare, the Burkean impulses will be right back. And the germanics will once again be beating other groups heads in.

    Social

    Reply

  21. I do have one theory, tho.

    I have a feeling that the altruism that HBDC loves so much, that the germanics have so much of, is not the only social gene that has been kicking around that gene pool. I think there may be another one that matters, one that affects violence, and for lack of a better term, conservatism. and that gene took a beating in back to back world wars.

    Wasn’t it Richelieau who suggested 30 years of war was enough to wipe out a country’s ability to fight back?

    It didn’t wipe out ours, but it hurt it. a semi-filtering event. That is why 1968 happened. The pussies survived the war, and the warlike didn’t. As much. Competing, but useful in different situations, genetic leanings. But now, the warlike are breeding, out breeding the hippies, and the tide is turning back.

    The next few decades will be very interesting.

    Social

    Reply

  22. @social – “Peace is a luxury good.”

    it’s not just that (see eisner and pinker) — but, yeah — it’s easier to have peace/be peaceful when resources are plentiful.

    @social – “I have a feeling that the altruism that HBDC loves so much….”

    note that a lot of the time when i talk about altruism i mean it in the biological sense of the word (i’m not always clear on when i’m talking about altruism in the layman’s sense or in the biological sense — i apologize for any confusion!), so altruistic behavior can include clubbing your non-relatives over the head with a big stick or whatever violent behavior tickles your fancy.

    Reply

  23. You are right, I may be putting words in your mouth. I was mixing the altruism of the quakers (and what we term the modern world) with the genes that make you take care of your kin. :) and while it may be weird to use a religious group as a proxy for a genetic trait, I think you would be right to do so….

    But they do seem to be two different strains of altruism.

    back to my main point, it strikes me that the first kind, the modern, cultural version, is a luxury good, that may not survive the next few decades. Maybe it will, but it sure doesn’t seem likely. Hate seems to stick around a lot longer than good will. it is easy to be peaceful when the “other” is shrinking and retreating, less so when they are vengeful for ancient sins.

    Social

    Reply

  24. @social – “But they do seem to be two different strains of altruism.”

    yes, they do.

    i’ve been referring to them as reciprocal vs. familial altruism. that dichotomy may not be exactly right, be it seems like a handy one to me.

    @social – “back to my main point, it strikes me that the first kind, the modern, cultural version, is a luxury good, that may not survive the next few decades. Maybe it will, but it sure doesn’t seem likely.”

    no, it doesn’t. =/

    Reply

  25. “It didn’t wipe out ours, but it hurt it. a semi-filtering event. That is why 1968 happened. The pussies survived the war, and the warlike didn’t. As much. Competing, but useful in different situations, genetic leanings.”

    That’s why the weaklings should be sent to the frontlines first. That way the men that survive the war will be the remnants of the best not the remnants of the cowards and sissies who stayed behind. In medieval times they never sent the best troops to take the gates, they always sent the peasants first.

    “But now, the warlike are breeding, out breeding the hippies, and the tide is turning back.

    The next few decades will be very interesting.”

    This in my opinion is the one and only good thing that could come out of the increase in single motherhood. Namely, women only ever pursue short-term mating strategies/single motherhood with the most aggressive testosterone charged men. So the next generation will be more aggressive and testosterone charged. Here’s hoping that translates into defense of Euro people and not into crime.

    Reply

  26. Multiculturalism and ethnic diversity are much more intense values in, say, Spanish America or amongs, say, Jamaican Americans in the US than ethnic Whites and in the US and Europe.

    East Asians out marry about as much as Whites and so do Africans.

    The Ottoman Empire, as Steve Sailer says, with its confessionism, probably closest to multiculturalism of any pre-modern polity (with all those “tribalistic” Middle Eastern people).

    I don’t see much of a “particular to me” multiculturalism and diversity in England / Holland and her offshoots.

    Relatively weak attachment to the state and group organisation and the person of authority, that I can see being an Anglo genetic inheritance, perhaps, maybe. Diversity and multiculturalism, no way – very contingent on social history without much of a genetic role.

    Reply

  27. @matt – “Relatively weak attachment to the state and group organisation and the person of authority, that I can see being an Anglo genetic inheritance, perhaps, maybe.”

    but part of the anglos’ strength is, i think, their ability to come together and organize into groups. the thing is, it’s corporate groups comprised of a bunch of individuals coming together as opposed to the clans or tribes of more inbred, “clannish” peoples.

    Reply

  28. @anonymous – “You could say that individualism leads to an increase in the importance of abstract ideals — the ideals of the Enlightenment — as opposed to instinct or tradition in the regulation of society.”

    yes. well, if you look at most of the ideals of the enlightenment — the philosophical nonsense about humans, that is — pretty much all of it is related to individuals and the natural (heh!), inalienable rights of individuals, blah, blah, blah.

    clannish peoples don’t think this way. such ideas never would’ve come out of a clannish population. and i don’t think they ever did (amirite?). inbred, clannish peoples are about groups — the rights of your family group (see, for example, latest post on anglo-saxons) — outbred, individualistic peoples are about individuals — and the rights (and duties) of those individuals.

    Reply

  29. @chris – “Capitalists want women in the workforce to push down wages and increase taxes and leftism provides the ideological cover for that. Capitalists want more immigrants to push down wages and increase taxes and leftism provides the ideological cover for that. Capitalists want to undermine nations and national sovereignty to allow free movement of capital and labour and leftism provides the ideological cover for that.”

    agreed. =/

    Reply

  30. @redzen – “And also, they have no obligation to understand the science itself, because the discussion is not a factual one, but a moral one.”

    yes. the whole “i’m more moral than you” thing (and status game?) that drives the anti-racists is pretty funny. well, it would be pretty funny if it weren’t so seriously stultifying. and, of course, career wrecking in some cases.

    one terrific section in pinker’s The Better Angels was a great analysis of how everybody — on both sides of any argument — thinks/feels they are “right” and “good” and that their opponents are not just “wrong” but “evil.” i want to post about it one of these days ’cause pinker really nailed it. terrific stuff!

    Reply

  31. @melykin – “I don’t think multiculturalism is a natural state for Anglo people or for anyone else.”

    no, i don’t think so either. but i do think that anglos (and other nw europeans) are more open to accepting strangers into their group because of their general individualistic and universalistic attitude. more open to it than other peoples, that is.

    @melykin – “Maybe the elites dreamed up the multicultural idea to make themselves seem morally superior to common people.”

    that could very well be a part of it, too.

    Reply

  32. @Matt

    I don’t know where you got the idea that the Ottoman empire made a virtue of multiculti. They did have it, but that was the result of conquering multiple groups. not quite a trip to the mall…

    S

    p.s. @Melykin-Multicultism as a virtue over the knuckledragging flyovers? oh yes, indeed.

    Reply

  33. One theory is that it was a Jewish plot: From Boas to Ashley Montague to Stephen Jay Gould, the politically correct meme was established that there was no such thing as race. This has obvious protective coloration value for a small inbred market (and culture) dominant minority, who proceeded to criminalize the thought that letting a lot of non-European racial groups into the country was maybe not such a good idea, as people like Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in “The Disuniting of America” and Samuel P. Huntington in “Who Are We?” argued. In a multi-racial society composed of an agglomeration of feuding ethnic groups who were easily identified by the color of their skins and the shapes of their eyes it was easy for this one group, who were visually indistinguishable from the European population, to hide. I don’t say this was a conscious strategy — though I would not be surprised if it were occasionally discussed in private — but rather more of an instinctual thing given the historical experience of their race.

    Reply

  34. Clarification: by “it” I mean the multicultural idea, against which Western liberal societies, who believed the individual was the fundamental unit of society and had no concept of clannish self-interest, were powerless to resist.

    Reply

  35. To those who responded to my question about the Swedes, thanks.

    I’ve concluded that Swedes have genetic characteristics that really do lead them easily to conform and not seem to bothered by it.

    I dated many decades ago a Swedish-American man. We were quite serious about one another, headed for marriage until I had a talk with myself. He couldn’t stand conflict. If people disagreed with one another (as in if he and I disagreed with each other), he’d simply withdraw or stop talking about the subject so as to avoid conflict. I wouldn’t say “he stuffed his feelings” either in the sense that it didn’t seem to bother him that he didn’t face conflict. (In business and in sports, he was quite the aggressive competitor, however–go figure.)

    When finally I asked him about this he explained that in their 50+ years of marriage, his parents never argued. “Never argued?” I asked.

    “Well, rarely and never loudly.” (I realized this was a reference to my tendency to raise the volume of my voice).

    This half Italian, quarter Irish, quarter Cherokee knew she couldn’t deal with this. Alas, it was too bad. I did love him, but I knew he was so discomfited by disagreement that he couldn’t have put up with me any more than I could him down the line.

    I learned in subsequent years that there is indeed a Swedish proclivity to not fight, to not voice opposition to whatever the flavor of the month is, and it was simply something I couldn’t accept.

    Ahhhh, HBD!

    Reply

  36. @Social Pengler:
    12/11/2012 at 4:07 PM

    “I do have one theory, tho…The pussies survived the war, and the warlike didn’t. As much. Competing, but useful in different situations, genetic leanings. But now, the warlike are breeding, out breeding the hippies, and the tide is turning back.”

    It’s not clear how big a dent the wars put into the gene pool.

    Reply

  37. @hbd chick
    “@jayman – “My gf (well, fiancée now)….”

    hey! congratulations! (^_^) always good to hear happy news. (^_^)”

    Thank you! :)

    Reply

  38. @HBD Chick:

    “one terrific section in pinker’s The Better Angels was a great analysis of how everybody — on both sides of any argument — thinks/feels they are “right” and “good” and that their opponents are not just “wrong” but “evil.” i want to post about it one of these days ’cause pinker really nailed it. terrific stuff!”

    Beliefs, be they political, ideological, or religious are as much about conformity (showing that you’re a committed member of the group) and status (signalling your “high-mindedness”—sometimes this backfires) than their practical applications.

    Reply

  39. @erica:

    “He couldn’t stand conflict. If people disagreed with one another (as in if he and I disagreed with each other), he’d simply withdraw or stop talking about the subject so as to avoid conflict. I wouldn’t say “he stuffed his feelings” either in the sense that it didn’t seem to bother him that he didn’t face conflict. (In business and in sports, he was quite the aggressive competitor, however–go figure.)

    When finally I asked him about this he explained that in their 50+ years of marriage, his parents never argued. “Never argued?” I asked.

    “Well, rarely and never loudly.” (I realized this was a reference to my tendency to raise the volume of my voice).”

    My fiancée and I are both conflict-averse (I know you could never tell! :p). This works great for us, most of the time. Obviously, conflict-aversion can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the type of person you are.

    Reply

  40. “I learned in subsequent years that there is indeed a Swedish proclivity to not fight, to not voice opposition to whatever the flavor of the month is…”

    Spot on. Unless (again) there’s a perception that it’s what they’re “supposed” to do. To return to the previous subject, you’ll find no shortage of Swedes willing to fight white male racists.

    Reply

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s