Insidious Sincerity

One way I’ve evolved, and differ from John C. Wright and others, is that I no longer believe the enemies of western civilization are horrible, evil liars and morons. I know too many of these people, and too many smart people, to think this is the case.

I think many men underestimate the human mind’s capacity for self-deception and indoctrination. Let’s talk about Wright again. I don’t mean to pick on him. He is a good man and, I think, does far more good than harm. I work with him frequently now and am very proud to say that.

But I think he is wrong – very wrong – gravely, seriously, totally wrong – about his opinions on governance. I don’t think this is a slight error. I think he believes full-blown herisies, but doesn’t realize it.

This is an extremely bold thing to say; I actually feel bad about saying it. You understand that I doubt – and I can say this because I’ve worked so closely with him now – that he is morally culpable for believing these heresies, because I think he really, truly doesn’t understand them. I think he genuinely tries to serve the Church, and for the most part does so with great vigor – better than myself in many ways.

And yet. And yet; “America is a church” is a very grave thing to say. That you’d rather die than tip your hat to the king is a massive error, not a small one, and his whole political system is based around freedom and equality as ideals to be reached. He totally fails to see the problems with those ideals – they don’t make sense, at least not as the basis of a system of government. He completely misses that government by the consent of the governed is ultimately totally mistaken to the point of being radically harmful. And he very publicly announces these beliefs to a large audience that he has at least some influence over.

But John is a good man. And John is not a liar.

Take Peter Singer. Singer’s views on abortion are wicked, repulsive, murderous. But I have no reason to think he’s lying. I have no reason to think he’s insincere. I think his beliefs on charity work, while extreme to the point of being rather silly, are at least somewhat noble. I don’t think Peter Singer has any clue that what he’s saying is harmful. He believes he is helping people – genuinely believes it. The Operative is, after all, a Believer.

Look at Vox Day’s strategies: Literal blacklisting. Public shaming. Ridicule…all against SJW’s. And, believe it or not, I have no problem with this.

But this tells us something, and it is this: If one can be correct and right to blacklist, shame, and ridicule people for the things they say…why are we assuming our opponents are lying? Who’s to say they’re anything but utterly sincere? They don’t worship evil. They think they’re doing good – and clearly we can agree that it’s not their methods, generally, that are bad; it’s their beliefs.

But people don’t reach those beliefs in a vacuum. Smart people can get badly brainwashed. Nazi scientists developed the rocket that went to the moon, after all. Look at the people who have “Taken the red pill”. Many new “converts”, for lack of a better term, are quite angry, and believe themselves to have left the Matrix. They see the world as it is. And yet, they don’t stop to consider the fact that while they were apparently smart enough to escape the Matrix, they were fooled by it for many years – and it stands to reason that if they can be fooled about that for so long, there’s no reason there aren’t other deeply held beliefs that are totally, utterly wrong.

The idea that abortion advocates worship evil and lies, and are all horrible people, is a false one…at least in the sense most people use “horrible people”. In actuality, these are people who are willing to put themselves out there for a cause they believe is just and righteous, not evil. And as Mr. Wright shows, and many others, you don’t need to be an idiot to be tricked.

I don’t think what I’m saying is optimistic. Far from it. I think it is WORSE than the view that we are surrounded by horrible, evil monsters. Because you can kill monsters without guilt. But people?

Well, now your best option is conversion. And that is much more difficult.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Insidious Sincerity

  1. Chad says:

    Pride hinders people from seeing truth, or acting on it. Or they look back, as Lot’s wife, to be caught again in their errors.

    They may be sincere, but a sincere, unjustified sinner still is damned. Not that any of the individuals mentioned are such, simply advising against the judgment of no culpability, which can lead to damnation as much as a rash judgment

    • Oh, I fully agree with you. No culpability isn’t meant to be an excuse; after all, no matter how well I know someone whether or not he truly has “no culpability” is between him and God. I’m just trying to say that I think Mr. Wright is trying to do his best to help the Church.

      • Chad says:

        Fair, but I am fairly dure most saints would advise people to know their faith, and let Holy Mother Church help herself. Especially as one of the laity. Many of the current problems are due to laity pressuring the hierarchy into positions that are comfortable for them rather than follow as needed

  2. Crude says:

    Take Peter Singer. Singer’s views on abortion are wicked, repulsive, murderous. But I have no reason to think he’s lying. I have no reason to think he’s insincere. I think his beliefs on charity work, while extreme to the point of being rather silly, are at least somewhat noble.

    I differ completely with regards to Singer. I believe his views on morality are the opposite of noble – they are necessarily harmful and immoral themselves. I know I’m actually in a minority here, since Singer often gets the ‘he’s a nice guy and he’s so idealistic, he’s just wrong’ sticker. He may be sincere, but I think it’s utterly wrong to regard his views as noble, even with qualification.

    But this tells us something, and it is this: If one can be correct and right to blacklist, shame, and ridicule people for the things they say…why are we assuming our opponents are lying? Who’s to say they’re anything but utterly sincere?

    Vox endorses blacklisting and more precisely because those are the exact same tactics SJWs have used, and he believes progress is essential on these fronts. You can only have a ‘blacklisting is wrong’ view when all sides adhere to it. Shaming and ridiculing is beyond the pale only when all sides agree to it. And for the record, a good number of SJWs pleaded that these things were all wrong when they were on the outs. And a good number of people on Vox’s side stuck to that view.

    And yet, they don’t stop to consider the fact that while they were apparently smart enough to escape the Matrix, they were fooled by it for many years – and it stands to reason that if they can be fooled about that for so long, there’s no reason there aren’t other deeply held beliefs that are totally, utterly wrong.

    I agree completely.

    The idea that abortion advocates worship evil and lies, and are all horrible people, is a false one…at least in the sense most people use “horrible people”. In actuality, these are people who are willing to put themselves out there for a cause they believe is just and righteous, not evil.

    And here, I disagree.

    I think it’s possible to overdo this talk. But I think you may be underestimating the appreciation someone can have for blasphemy, heresy, nihilism and lies. People like to lie.

    I’m sympathetic to some of what you’re saying here. I think you’re right about some things, and a certain amount of caution and self-skepticism is helpful. But I’m a refugee of the ‘benefit of the doubt’ perspective. I have seen enough to realize that no, many people are capable – if only in part – of some nasty motivations. ‘Doing the right thing’ motivates little of what we see. There’s something else going on.

    • Well, EVERYBODY likes to lie. I have the feeling that believers will have this problem as much as anybody else.

      I differ completely with regards to Singer. I believe his views on morality are the opposite of noble – they are necessarily harmful and immoral themselves.

      That’s fair. I know next to nothing about Singer; I’m just saying that from what I know of his moral views I have no reason to think he doesn’t believe he’s doing the right thing. But if you know more, hey, I’ll concede that point.

      Vox endorses blacklisting and more precisely because those are the exact same tactics SJWs have used, and he believes progress is essential on these fronts.

      Absolutely. But that still means that there’s nothing inherently immoral about blacklisting.

      I have seen enough to realize that no, many people are capable – if only in part – of some nasty motivations.

      Yeah. I am as well – sometimes.

      But if you’re going to dedicate your life to something, you probably believe its a noble cause. Pro-choicers use liberal – in the most technical sense, not just modern leftist – logic to justify abortion, and they are entirely correct. From that perspective, they are fighting for freedom from women. Everything I’ve seen leads me to believe that they think this is a noble cause.

    • Crude says:

      Well, EVERYBODY likes to lie. I have the feeling that believers will have this problem as much as anybody else.

      Depends. I actually have trouble with it, partly because I have enough of a commitment to the Classical theistic idea that lies, real lies, are a lot more repugnant now. I do not think I am alone in that. In fact, as near as I can tell, this view used to be a lot more common. We see echoes of it.

      Absolutely. But that still means that there’s nothing inherently immoral about blacklisting.

      I don’t think anyone would say as much without qualification – a jail is just a blacklisting from society. But with SJWs, that blacklisting came about after pleas for open-mindedness and tolerance. Everyone notices the switch on the part of the political left from ‘Let’s be open-minded and tolerant, academia is a place where one can be exposed to no ideas’ to ‘That is hate speech, hate speech is forbidden, and the definition of hate-speech is ever-expanding’. I do not think this was a sudden and innocent change of attitude for many.

      Pro-choicers use liberal – in the most technical sense, not just modern leftist – logic to justify abortion, and they are entirely correct. From that perspective, they are fighting for freedom from women. Everything I’ve seen leads me to believe that they think this is a noble cause.

      From women? Ha. No, I get what you meant.

      I think where we differ here, if we differ at all, is on this point: what they often consider a ‘noble cause’ to be, at the end of the day. And part of that is going to depend on what’s meant by ‘pro-abortion’ – most people think abortion should be restricted in various ways.

      But take the apparent extremists. Do I think they go ‘I am in the service of Baal the many-bladed, but I shall hide this!’? No. But I think what counts as a ‘noble cause’ for them is not something borne out of deep reflection and conviction of the nobility and right and justice of abortion. It’s messier and uglier than that. A lot of it is as deep as culture and crowd – they’re in a group that seems to sanctify abortion, so they echo that, because being that’s how you get called a good person in their group. Argument and conviction doesn’t mean a damn thing so long as that reinforcement is in place, and I think a lot of that reinforcement comes from sources which aren’t motivated by nobility to begin with.

      I’ll throw out an example. How many times have you heard ‘the law is the law’, ‘the law is settled’ with regards to gay marriage? You will hear a LOT of impassioned pleas that we’re a nation of laws, and we follow laws, we can’t pick and choose our laws, the foundation of society rests on this, people who oppose the law must be punished. Then compare it against the number of people who believe that even calling an illegal alien a lawbreaker is itself immoral, those laws are immoral, enforcing them is immoral. Those Venn diagrams overlap, heavily. Call them on it, and they won’t even pause. They will immediately seek some new justification for the positions, if they even care about the contradiction.

      I’m talking about extremists. I don’t think many are that – and I think for many people, abortion isn’t a noble cause. They just don’t care, or they think in terms of convenience and find the whole thing absurd.

  3. James says:

    Malcolm said:

    One way I’ve evolved, and differ from John C. Wright and others, is that I no longer believe the enemies of western civilization are horrible, evil liars and morons. I know too many of these people, and too many smart people, to think this is the case.

    I don’t know about the other people you’ve mentioned, but I’ve been doing a bit of reading over at Wright’s blog and tend to agree with you.
    I want to take it a step further, though. I administer multiple blogs and one is a “religious” blog which I’ve been writing for a number of years (I won’t spam you by posting a link here, but it’s available upon request). I know in that time, I’ve encountered a lot of contention among the faithful, usually on some sort of theological or doctrinal position. In the religious world, you can agree with another person on maybe 85% or more of their understanding of the Bible, but it’s that other 15% that will drive them to “demonize” you.
    That doesn’t happen all the time, but one’s religious beliefs are usually highly emotionally charged. Question some traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible (such as Paul having taught that Jews no longer had to observe the Torah mitzvoth because Jesus “fulfilled” them) and you’ll find yourself in a virtual knife fight.
    I think it’s important to ask questions. I think it’s important to talk with others who aren’t exactly like you (the generic “you,” not the Malcolm “you”). How else can we learn?
    At least as far as the Bible goes, there is ongoing research into the scriptures going on, so our understanding of Biblical issues isn’t necessarily static. I regularly read New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado’s blog, not only because I find him accessible, but because he provokes some very interesting thoughts.
    I believe it’s possible to disagree with someone without personalizing conflict. If disciples of Jesus can’t acknowledge what binds them while at the same time recognizing where they disagree, is there really a body of Christ?

    • Crude says:

      In the religious world, you can agree with another person on maybe 85% or more of their understanding of the Bible, but it’s that other 15% that will drive them to “demonize” you.

      Part of the reason for that is they suspect – with great justification – that the 15% you disagree with is the 15% you’re willing to talk about. And the moment it becomes acceptable to open discuss and reject the 15%, they’re quickly going to find that the problem is now that you agree with them on 80%, and they accept dissent on 15%, but for some reason they’re recalcitrant towards that measly 5%. And on and on it goes, until the people who were originally in agreement with 90% now find themselves in a church where the newly revised doctrines are perhaps 5% compatible with their views, and if they ask for some openness about the 10% that used to be dogma, they’re told that no – that battle is over, and time marches onward, not backward.

      Beyond that, you say ‘in the religious world’, but why bracket that? Tell me how disagreeing with 15% goes over in the political world.

      At least as far as the Bible goes, there is ongoing research into the scriptures going on

      There’s also ongoing research into gender, race, biology and more going on. Are sexism and racism up for debate? Is ‘it’s moral to stone adulterers to death’ a live option, pending appropriate scholarship?

      If disciples of Jesus can’t acknowledge what binds them while at the same time recognizing where they disagree, is there really a body of Christ?

      Not everyone is part of the body of Christ. Christ and Paul both seemed more than comfortable with the idea that not everyone who proclaimed Christ was part of that body.

      Acknowledging areas of agreement seems easily accomplished. The problem is that this isn’t what’s desired typically. People want to dissent, even dissent heavily, from a given church or organization, be allowed to remain, and also be allowed to strongly pursue upending all the teachings they disagree with. Eventually the calls for open-mindedness morph into ‘There is no place in the church for (what was previously dogma) talk.’

      There’s no lack of churches that have, frankly, become rotten over the years. It’s hard to blame anyone for deciding to guard their churches, or their organizations. The people who took over and whose original battlecry was ‘We agree on so much, be open-minded!’ have shown what happens once they’re comfortable.

      • James says:

        I suppose we could talk about apostate churches all day long, but that really wasn’t my point.

        However…

        I used to attend a small Baptist church here in Southwestern Idaho. The head Pastor and I became close, meeting once a week for one-on-one discussions. He had lived in Israel for 15 years, and he knew I was married to a Jewish spouse and had a rather unique “Jewish” interpretation of the Bible that I found (and still find) compatible with my faith in Jesus.

        He also guarded his flock and espoused what he believes to be sound doctrine. The problem is all churches believe they teach sound doctrine and don’t question their long-held assumptions for a single instant. That’s finally what ended our relationship (actually, that’s a rather long story). I understand he’s got a job to do, but it means not considering for even a moment that he could be wrong about something.

        Most of what the Church understands about theology, and especially Paul, was forged in early Church history when there was a tragic schism between the non-Jewish disciples and their Jewish mentors. It is my understanding that as the non-Jews overtook the Jewish believers in number, they “refactored” theology and interpretation so that it took a decidedly non-Jewish position. Jewish believers were thrown out of their own party, so to speak, and then compelled to renounce Judaism and the vast majority of God’s covenant promises to Israel as a condition of swearing fealty to their own Jewish King.

        As much as we like to think the Reformation changed things, it really didn’t. They didn’t go back far enough and look at what the Bible actually says without all the theological bias in place. If we choose to set our traditions aside, just for a bit, and review the overarching message of the Bible, we might actually find that no one church or denomination has a corner market on truth. Our relationship with God is a relationship of constant discovery. Sure, there are absolutes, but human beings aren’t God. We don’t have an unfiltered view of everything. Our traditions and emotions are constantly getting in the way. There’s always something more to learn rather than just regurgitating what we were taught years ago.

        Now I realize I represent the minority position and I’m expressing my opinions in someone else’s house. I’m not trying to convince anyone to change their minds. I’ve fought that battle many times before and it is always futile. I’m merely saying that, in my opinion, no one knows it all (especially me), so that stating any one church is 100% theologically and doctrinally correct and has a totally unfiltered view of the Bible is a little over the top.

      • Crude says:

        Malcolm,

        For what it’s worth, I actually think the idea that anyone or anything has 100% certainty about ANYTHING is a modern one, and rather insidious. There’s a level of doubt at all stages.

        I’d actually agree with that. But that means I disagree with James when he says:

        The problem is all churches believe they teach sound doctrine and don’t question their long-held assumptions for a single instant.

        No, I don’t think that’s true. It’s certainly not ‘all churches’. I look all around and I see a whole lot of churches whose history is one long string of changes. Of the ones that didn’t change, I see moments where they or individuals in them considered it.

        You can point to individuals who are obstinate. But here’s the irony: my experience has been that the people most likely to plea that others just won’t consider for a moment that they may be wrong… tend to be extraordinarily reluctant to consider the idea they are wrong.

        They didn’t go back far enough and look at what the Bible actually says without all the theological bias in place. If we choose to set our traditions aside, just for a bit, and review the overarching message of the Bible, we

        …Would still be biased. Because we always have a bias, and even totally certain divine inspiration would not eliminate bias. It just introduces a particular kind.

        Because there’s no way to be bias-free in reading the Bible. Back to Malcolm’s view. I do not hold the beliefs I do because they are 100% certainly right. I think few do – even Paul said that if Christ didn’t rise, their faith is in vain, and they’re all making a mistake.

        Either way, my view is not that one church is 100% certainly correct. But I have seen churches and organizations and parties and even families, subverted, from all kinds of directions. It happens, and it’s not always – in fact, rarely is – prompted by good and innocent intentions. It is often a sociopolitical gambit, a conscious decision to move the dial.

    • For what it’s worth, I actually think the idea that anyone or anything has 100% certainty about ANYTHING is a modern one, and rather insidious. There’s a level of doubt at all stages.

      A while back I got into a long discussion over various blogs about God ordering the murder of civilizations, and even infants, in the Old Testament. The gist of my position is that pretending we all know *exactly* what God was saying and *exactly* what he meant, even if it’s an order to do something obviously morally repugnant, is a mistake. We can get an idea, but there’s always a limit to what we can know for sure.

  4. Zippy says:

    The biggest problem with accusations of insincerity is that they are a form of unilateral surrender. It is basically a way of saying that if the accused believed what he says he believes he couldn’t be wrong; which is really just to express agreement with the objective content of the statements of the accused.

    I expect that this is fairly common because most modern people are deeply and unconsciously infected with modern ideas, and questioning those fundamental modern ideas is anathema.

  5. LorenzoCanuck says:

    TBH, I am no fan of Vox Day, mostly because I find his whole project to be full of sound and fury and not much else.

    The overall result of his, uh, efforts has been to harden the ideological frontlines between his side and the “SJWs”. This would be commendable if there was, say, an actual war happening, but all we have, really, are People Wrong On The Internet (Not to mention I have deep issues with how he – and John – make use of man’s tribal instincts to froth up their followers for conflict, but that’s another story). Perhaps the overall goal is to piss off the SJWs, and certainly he has done that, but I’m not sure if much else has really happened that can considered a “victory” in any sense of the term.

    Or maybe I’m wrong. Someone could convince me otherwise, perhaps.

    • Crude says:

      Perhaps the overall goal is to piss off the SJWs, and certainly he has done that, but I’m not sure if much else has really happened that can considered a “victory” in any sense of the term.

      I think his success with the Hugo awards alone is something. Keep in mind that with SJWs, ‘simply resisting and fighting back’ is a major accomplishment. The previous way of handling this was an attitude of ‘Be the bigger man, give them everything they want, and apologize. That’s how one shows maturity! If you fight back, you’re as bad as they are!’

      Arguing on the internet is often a waste of time, but whipped up crowds are capable of everything from getting companies to change their policies to forcing apologies out of people. Morale and culture matters, and Vox has had a net positive effect in that regard. Less so than Milo Yiannapolous and all, but still.

  6. vishmehr24 says:

    The errors Mr Wright is supposed to be guilty of are very subtle political errors and who could say he is entirely free of subtle errors in politics and economics?
    Zippy’s views on these issues were exposed to great deal of criticism at W4 and I don’t think he came off convicingly.
    Regarding the rule by consent of the governed, I do recall a post by Wright saying that it is just a metaphor. His views, I believe, are not too far from the traditional views on politics.

    • The errors Mr Wright is supposed to be guilty of are very subtle political errors…

      But they’re not. They’re huge, gaping, massive errors that it just so happens probably well over 90% of the population believes, including me up until maybe a little over a year ago.

      Regarding the rule by consent of the governed, I do recall a post by Wright saying that it is just a metaphor.

      That makes even less sense.

      His views, I believe, are not too far from the traditional views on politics.

      Sure. Thus my point – nearly the whole world is totally convinced of things I think are enormously and obviously wrong, and most people throughout history never would have considered.

      Of course, I might be wrong. But I don’t think so.

      • vishmehr24 says:

        Here is the opening of the post by Wright which I was referring to:

        “If governments “govern by consent” then how come when I became a legal adult no official of either the state of Vermont or the United States federal government showed up, wished me a happy birthday, and asked me if I consented to their governing?”

        You asking me? My position is that the idea that governments “govern by consent” is misleading. It is a myth, like saying we are governed by a social contract.

        What the myth is pointing to, however, is a profound fact that is difficult to define. Governments govern by legitimacy. A legitimate government is one to whom you should consent. This is why I emphasized the role of the conscience in my article above: a man with a healthy conscience loves his home and his homeland, his family and clan and household gods.
        —————————————————————
        This is entirely pre-modern and undemocratic.

      • vishmehr24 says:

        This by Wright even Zippy would find difficult to disagree:

        So where does “consent” fit in? It is obviously not literal consent. I did not sign the Declaration of Independence. I suggest that the word “consent” is here used as a metaphor — albeit a misleading metaphor — for the concept of legitimacy.

        A legitimate government is one that has a right to command your consent. It is an authority, and not merely a power: a legitimate authority is one that has the right to demand obedience, and to compel obedience when it is not forthcoming. It is legitimate, among other reasons, because a healthy conscience would regard it as wrong, or, at least, morally doubtful, to disobey.

      • Zippy WOULD disagree, I would imagine, though I’m not him. This is still an error, in any case.

        It is legitimate, among other reasons, because a healthy conscience would regard it as wrong, or, at least, morally doubtful, to disobey.

        This still puts the morality of obedience and authority in the hands of the subjective opinions of people.

      • For that matter, it also destroys his argument that being subject to a king is akin to slavery. What if the king is well-loved? So what if he issues an order and the people believe that it is morally wrong to disobey?

        What if Mr. Wright lived in such a country? If he a slave, because he does not want to bend his knee to a king, but nobody else is, because they want to?

      • vishmehr24 says:

        I had supposed that his point was as an Virginian, he could not bow to a king. That is, the tradition in Virginia was republican. He would not mind an Englishman bowing to his king.

      • Not at all. From him:

        I made a comment, which frankly I thought to be unexceptional, almost routine, that I would rather die than doff my cap to a king, since I am a Virginian.

        To my infinite surprise, several readers wrote in expressing puzzlement, asking for clarification, wondering if I meant this as a general rule, or only for myself. Would I actually endanger my family by defying the sovereign person had I lived in the Middle Ages? Other readers said monarchy was a respectable form of government, or asked about living under King Arthur of Camelot or King Elessar Telcontar of Gondor, who were good kings, and so on.

        My answer to you all is written beneath the great seal of my commonwealth: Sic Semper Tyrannis.

        Even if Wright were living underneath a good king in the middle ages, he would not bow to them.

  7. Zippy says:

    The various citations of Wright are classic classical liberal equivocation and incoherence. First he turns “consent” into a moral imperative to consent to (his kind of) liberalism:

    A legitimate government is one that has a right to command your consent. It is an authority, and not merely a power: a legitimate authority is one that has the right to demand obedience, and to compel obedience when it is not forthcoming. It is legitimate, among other reasons, because a healthy conscience would regard it as wrong, or, at least, morally doubtful, to disobey.

    And then the twist:

    My answer to you all [about whether anyone should ever submit to the authority of a rightful king] is written beneath the great seal of my commonwealth: Sic Semper Tyrannis.

    “Consent of the governed” means that you should consent to liberal governance and only liberal governance, or else you are subhuman scum.

    And what is meant, unambiguously, by liberal governance? Why, it means just what Wright says it means, nothing more, nothing less.

    These are among the consequences of religious devotion to incoherent political ideology.

  8. And once again, I’ll note – it’s not as if he’s alone with his errors here. He’s probably saying what the vast majority of people living in the United States believe – even well over 90%.

    I’m really just quoting him because he’s the one I talked with about it.

  9. The Deuce says:

    Malcolm:

    I take a middle ground position here. Your typical progressive is neither genuinely sincere nor consciously dishonest. Progressivism is based on subconscious self-deception. The progressive is constantly rationalizing away the reality he observes in order to shore up a comfortable narrative that he is emotionally invested in, usually because abandoning the narrative would force him to accept personal flaws and shortcomings in himself that he doesn’t want to admit.

    Everything about the way the left behaves and argues (or rather avoids arguing) suggests as much. The mob violence, the safe spaces, the no-platformings – these all imply a person who KNOWS that he’s wrong at some level deep down, and is taking purposeful steps to avoid exposure to any facts, arguments, or ideas that might force him to accept that he is wrong, or at least increase the level of cognitive dissonance that is constantly gnawing at him.

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