Anything peaceful and voluntary.

Occupy Wall Street: The Red Menace Ain’t Dead Yet by Bill Buppert

“The clock of communism has stopped striking. But its concrete building has not yet come crashing down. For that reason, instead of freeing ourselves, we must try to save ourselves from being crushed by its rubble.”

– Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Occupy Wall Street is about conformity and compliance. The males (not men) and women that people the protests are consistently collectivists and apologists for stateviolence with heads expensively filled by overpriced universities with the most economically illiterate and toxic nonsense a state-dominated college education system could produce. Just as fashion is not about individual tastes but mass appeal, the protests are about the Free Stuff Army much as the antiwar protests dwindled to near zero with the end of the draft, the same applies here. As soon as these scholars-in-hock get loan forgiveness for their easily earned degrees, the cries for social justice will diminish except for the professional protestors and the true believers of collectivism whose life mission is to enslave humanity in an even more effective slave state than we have built so far in America. Where did these protestors come from?

The New left was at an intellectual crossroads in the 1960s. The fork in the road would either embrace totalitarian collectivism or anarchistic individualism and they chose the former in droves. In a world dominated by bipolar military industrial complexes in both the US and the other USSR at the time, communism was still seen by the chattering intellectual classes in the West as the only just and righteous organizing principle for societies except for the lone voices like Koestler and Conquest. Up until 1989, the leading introductory textbook on economics penned and edited by Paul Samuelson was still trumpeting the superior efficacy of Communist delivery of goods and services over the free market.

“By the thirteenth edition (1989), Samuelson and Nordhaus declared, “the Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed; a socialist command economy can function and even thrive” (13:837). Samuelson and Nordhaus were not alone in their optimistic views about Soviet central planning; other popular textbooks were also generous in their descriptions of economic life under communism prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

Today, the third generation of this totalitarian temptation has taken the form of fashionable collectivists shambling about their camp-hives on Wall Street and the satellite protests scattered across the nation. Adam Kokesh has provided a brilliant snapshot video record of the sheer inanity and clouded thinking of the moron-a-thon known as Occupy Wall Street but strip it of all the florid protestations and mewling about “fair share” and “distribution” and it comes down to one single operative principle: a monopoly on the threat and use of force must be employed to bring order and justice to human conclaves.

I find it very creepy and disturbing to watch several of the videos where the protesters are gathered in training sessions repeating behavior constraints on how to protest and deal with the police. Not adults briefing up other folks on rules of conduct, but the noxious Jesse Jackson-style nursery rhyme cadence of repeat after me. You can even look at this video of a Young Communist League contingent in Chicago to discover where the Occupy protestors got their cute little “United “riff they employ. I suspect that one reason communism/socialism is seeing a new resurgence may be the junction of willful ignorance through electronic addiction (tethering to information devices) and the wonderful attraction of collectivism by relieving the advocate of all personal responsibility to provide for neighbors through voluntary effort. Under the umbrella of collectivism, these are nothing more than more codified versions of violent tax and resource farming.

The protestors show a very conflicted relationship with the police. They seem frightened and cowed by them yet the police and the protestors share the same common goal: increased concentration and use of violence to guide human behavior to fit the mold of the new homo Sovieticus the protesters desire.

Igor Kon told us the psychological consequences of this mentality:

“One of his most important insights is that the “negative selection”, including various types of visibly oppressive treatment of those whose thinking doesn’t fit the “party line” leads to development of “acquired helplessness syndrome”[17]

This phenomenon explains the traits characteristic of many ex-Soviet citizens: shyness, passivity, excessive trust – and need – of government, belief that one cannot really control his fate without a “guiding hand”.

According to Kon, “The lack of individual responsibility is a product of decades of living under limited freedom. People get used to oppression. This has always happened with totalitarian regimes. I remember, I was greatly surprised to meet people with a similar mentality in East Germany, a country that has always been very different from Russia. This happened during the unification of the East and West Germany. I saw fright in the eyes of the East Germans, the same reaction as I see here in Russia – people do not know what to do. There is a psychological term for this – the acquired helplessness syndrome. The syndrome is usually manifested in social pessimism and lack of self-confidence. The acquired helplessness syndrome is the main feature of Soviet mentality and unfortunately it is prevalent among senior citizens.”

Wilhelm Reich went on to posit the psychology of fascism in a similar vein.

The police have been surprisingly restrained in their use of violence toward the protestors even though protest in the US today is closer to a permission slip to speak loudly than the raucous imbroglios of the past. Even the Tea Party went so far as to seek permission to put tea in the Mirror Pool proximate to the memorial to one of the most savage presidents in US history, Lincoln. A man who kidnapped and jailed tens of thousands of antiwar protestors. Some have even posited that these protests are carefully orchestrated media events to distract the dwindling consumers of the dinosaur media from the real problems in America. The useful idiot ranks are swelled by the critical thinking-handicapped wards of the university system who graduate and find themselves in a world more real than the Ivory Tower gulags that fill their heads with fever-dreams of gun-run utopias (as long as the guns are not in private hands, oh my).

One would be hard pressed to find a collectivist protestor who is not carrying rhetorical water for the advocacy of maximum government. In this version of America, Wall Street is indeed a wholly owned regulatory subsidiary of the Federal government that can’t make a trade for a dollar without Federal oversight and permission. The one percent isn’t the rich; they are the government nomenklatura that runs the feed lot called America. These protestors for the most part are merely more vocal cows seeking greater subsidy at the feeding trough. They consider private property the real enemy which means they are gunning for anyone who desires freedom and liberty. Get ready.

The police and the protestors have one thing in common: they both have a pathological hatred of individual volition, free markets and free moral agency. The former represent the very concrete realization of the utopian ideal the latter wish for.

I hope they get it good and hard.

Resist.

“The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”

-Karl Marx

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com

More here:  http://zerogov.com/

Advertisements

24 responses

  1. While I find the unthinking, ill-informed anti-capitalist rhetoric of many of the people involved in this demonstration to be naive at best, and at worst, malicious, I think this is an oversimplified view of what is going on. Not every demonstrator fits this description. I know people who are involved and they are not the passive, hated-filled people you describe. I am not denying that the kind you describe are there; yes, they are. But like the Tea Party people, there is a wide range of participants in this demonstration. To imply that they are all passive robots is approaching the kind of demagoguery you complain about.
    I have studied political behavior for many years and have even done my own research in political behavior. Your commentary is opinion and rhetoric, not research. I am skeptical of how much such inflammatory commentary contributes to our understanding of what is going on. I am also disturbed by the original version of this commentary where you used a appallingly sexist term to describe these people. That tells me volumes. I cannot trust the opinions of someone who would write like that. Your phrase implied that you think these people are “weak” like women. Why then should we take your opinion seriously? What kind of thinking is that? You ruined whatever good may be present in your analysis by your overzealous intent to demonize all the participants.

    October 15, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    • Sharon,

      Your commentary is opinion and rhetoric, not research.

      Of course it’s opinion, it is blogging and not a peer reviewed or juried research paper in some government sponsored journal.

      I am also disturbed by the original version of this commentary where you used a appallingly sexist term to describe these people. That tells me volumes. I cannot trust the opinions of someone who would write like that. Your phrase implied that you think these people are “weak” like women. Why then should we take your opinion seriously?

      I will not get in a foodfight over who is more politically correct than the next and I will leave that to the people who care about such things. If the merit of one’s argument is hung on totems of inconclusive thinking about sexism then we better drum Fred Reed and Jim Goad out on a rail for failing to obey the rules of the road. If thinking is measured by whose sensitivity is gored maybe it is closer to the truth than not. We should also ignore John Lott’s conclusions about women’s suffrage enabling the increase of the welfare state because the conclusions are inconvenient. History amply demonstrates that for every Boudicca and Joan of Arc, there are thousands of male warriors who fight for both defense and conquest. Is there an implication of modal differences in behavior between the sexes?

      See: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=160530 and here http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html

      We can do the same thing about research on IQ and climate change since we may make the nervous fill their pants at such blasphemies.

      How could I imply they are all passive robots when the hyper-linked videos clearly show them mimicking the child-like verses from the protest organizers. I would be hard-pressed to “demonize” all the participants but I stand by my conclusion that the protests are overwhelmingly populated by folks who despise private property and love the institution of initiated violence.

      Yes, indeed, the wonderful Tea Party congresscreatures who overwhelmingly voted for continued war and renewal of the Patriot Act.

      October 16, 2011 at 1:27 am

  2. Why does someone stoop to the sort of bullying tactics used by grade school kids by impugning the masculinity of others because you don’t like them? To make a point out “males (not men)” is juvenile. It is the kind of thing insecure teenage boys do, not adults. And it is degrading to libertarianism to stoop to that level. I am unsure of what term Sharon found offensive but if it was deleted, while the remark impugning the masculinity of others was left in, then I would say the author has issues.

    October 15, 2011 at 7:13 pm

    • James,

      I stand by “males (not men)” and should have expanded to make it crystal clear. Men take responsibility and do not actively advocate for theft and initiated violence to get their way. Yes, I do think that there are men and makes as best explained by Brad Miner in “The Compleat Gentleman“. As a matter of fact, if sexism is acknowledging that there are differences between the sexes then I am guilty as charged of not subscribing to the deconstructionist/social modeling vogue of the academic Left (and Right in the case of the Straussians).

      then I would say the author has issues

      Now those who don’t comport to politically correct labels have issues? Is this anything like the Soviet diktat that unhappy and dissenting slaves in the USSR were psychological cripples and needed medical help? As a matter of fact, I think the war on boys and men is wreaking havoc in America. Maybe it is worse than homo Sovieticus, it may be evolving to a single sexed Sovieticus.

      Yes, I value masculinity.

      October 16, 2011 at 1:36 am

  3. Jim: Go look at my FB wall. The expunged comment was far worse but I refuse to use it here. Yeah, I think you may be right about “issues.” It’s highly inappropriate in a blog dedicated to liberty to use sexist stereotypes to impugn others.

    October 15, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    • Jim and Sharon,

      I borrowed from the politically incorrect Jim Goad’s brilliant analysis here: http://takimag.com/article/99_wrong#axzz1avQH2cgZ

      He said: “I have never seen so many women with beards in one place before.”

      I thought it was hilarious and revealing and I agree with his assessment. My lovely bride recommended I remove it so I followed her advice hence the edit to men and males. You will have to convince someone else to be politically correct because I simply will not subscribe to it.

      October 16, 2011 at 1:41 am

  4. Here are some of the responses that my Facebook post to this commentary received. Each one is made by a different person but only the ones who explicitly said I may use their names have been labeled.

    Female: “Sharon, your response was perfect.”

    Male: “Sharon, that rant by Bill Buppert sounds like it was written by a John Bircher from the 1950s. He’s definitely a patriarchal control freak.”

    Female: “I could dig some of the comments in this blog post, but honestly, it was so bitter in its tone. I am working on my own response to OWS because I believe the movement (as a total system) is advocating an exchange of one form of authoritarianism with another. I am thinking specifically of the kind of authoritarianism that Joel Kramer & Diana Alstad wrote about in a book called The Guru Papers and The Passionate Mind which cautions against this very thing.”

    Male: “I can almost sympathize with his anger, with Samuelson’s book-length paean to totalitarianism being forced upon me back in high school. (Revulsion to which awakened more of my incipient libertarian character, but not with my classmates.) Yet this goes far over the top in its own collectivist response and, of course, in both of those sexist locutions. Sharon was kinder to him than he deserved.”

    Ellen Young: “Yeah, even in his explanation, he showed how completely sexist he is. He says he has to call them males, not men, because “Men take responsibility and do not actively advocate for theft and initiated violence to get their way.” He didn’t feel the need to change women to females – the implication sure is that women inherently do not take responsibility and do advocate for theft and initiated violence to get their way. Creep.”

    Vahram G. Diehl : “Your response was spot on, Sharon. Attacks and insults of the ill-informed only get us so far in the path to building freedom. They serve mostly to turn off outsiders. Those in the know should seek to focus on solutions and positive approaches to changing hearts and minds. The most I have ever known such slanderous ridicule to do is incite interest from a minority of readers, and we should strive for higher goals.”

    Apparently some people agree with me and with Jim Peron. You continue to defend your dogmatic rant and your sexism and apparently see no problem with it. You predictably accuse us of being “politically correct.” I don’t give a rodent’s tiny derriere what is politically correct or incorrect and neither do any of the others who responded, all of whom are libertarians. We believe in balance and fairness. There doesn’t seem to be much of that in either your original commentary or in your response, just more of the same sexism and smug sense of superiority.

    October 16, 2011 at 5:04 pm

  5. I’m not sure what is meant in the original post and in the comments by Boer6 when it refers to people repeating what “leaders” are saying.

    Does Mr. Buppert not understand that the people at the Wall Street protest are not allowed to use either microphones, bullhorns or other voice/sound amplifying equipment?

    The repeating which is seen in the videos of that protest actually is so all in the fairly large to very large crowds which are present at any given time can in fact hear a single speaker.

    It’s called, sometimes, a work-around and in this instance that is exactly what the people are doing. That fact has been well reported in many media reports on the protests.

    Anyone can verify the accuracy of what I’ve said by going to youtube and watching any of the news station coverage which attended Michael Moore speaking…and that which has been reported by commercial media involving any of many, many “non-celebrity” speakers.

    They aren’t acting like parrots they are simply repeating so that all can hear a single speaker at a time. It’s actually a simple, civilized way to handle a somewhat adverse situation.

    I’m in complete agreement with James Peron. The comment about males/men was completely stupid, arrogant and intolerant…and that’s just what liberals might tell you. This libertarian has other words, cause I keep myself free to use those…I also often try not to, so I won’t say all that I really think about the crudeness with which you responded to James Peron’s remarks.

    October 16, 2011 at 7:17 pm

  6. Bo

    oh come on sharon. your arguments should be able to stand on their own merit. there’s no need to say, “neener neener, more people agree with me!” (argumentum ad numerum). next thing you’ll be pointing out is how many more friends you have on that facebook thingie in a popularity contest. a phd shrink should be able to do better than high school tactics.

    October 16, 2011 at 8:00 pm

  7. chris

    Sharon,
    It’s a good thing all of this matters.

    October 16, 2011 at 8:08 pm

  8. Jesse Mathewson

    The question I have is how one can be staunchly feminist and yet argue against males asserting their sexuality…agree or disagree what is importan is the message of liberty, and the collectivists masquerading as “anarchists/libertarians” currently protesting in many areas unfortunately do not want liberty, they want mutual consent and more regulation. Obviously this is not the entire “protest”. I would challenge Sharon and others to utilize the time honored format of essay versus essay as those stalwarts such as Paine utilized. More can be accomplished without resorting to petty name calling and attacks then by simply outlining an intellectually sound argument. Sharon, if Bill has not already invited you I would be happy to speak with him and tentatively extend the invitation for a classic exchange via the zerogov blog, I would be more then happy to assist and or cross intellectual swords as well if you would prefer that.

    As I have experienced strong independent and truly wonderful individuals regardless of sex are in many cases able to exchange witty banter and the occasional intellectually rich jab without resorting to the facebook flash mobs we all enjoy. Would you be willing?

    Regardless, I have personally enjoyed your writings and am an avid reader of Mr. Bupperts essays as well.

    Feel free to contact myself via zerogov.com – again keep writing and above all remember, we are all of us different, individuals more importantly I believe we all desire liberty from the current problem as it were.

    October 16, 2011 at 11:14 pm

  9. Jesse
    You may mean well so the following is not directed toward you.

    I refuse to debate with someone who makes immature, sexist, anti-gay, gutter-snipe comments of the kind that Libertopia had the good sense to remove. Bigotry is not debatable. As for “flash mobs,” on second thought maybe you don’t mean well. You have insulted my FB friends, who happen to be very thoughtful and decent people. I want nothing to do with your organization if this is the attitude you have.

    October 17, 2011 at 12:38 pm

  10. Jesse Mathewson

    No I was not attempting insult, in fact quite the opposite. I often for personal satisfaction resort to the use of my facebook “friendlist” among whom many thoughtful individuals reside, however, I also understand that “to each his own” is important.

    The idea of any ism being pursued with such hostility towards those we do not know via the Internet is intellectually dishonest for individuals in our positions either academically or within the liberty community; would you not agree?

    Is it not possible to simply state a point without attempting to gather or sway “public opinion” in our favor? Why are we not able to be better then the state which burdens us all?

    I renew the offer, and hope that you would take time to consider it. Write your thoughts in a form that you are familiar with and I will respond in kind. We are individuals S, none better or worse then the other. I make no apologies for approach and you should neither, but are we not better then the very problem we fight?

    October 17, 2011 at 3:49 pm

  11. Ellen Young

    Jesse, I’m surprised that you’re so sensitive on behalf of Bill and think the response toward him was so vitriolic, (it seemed quite measured to me) yet you’re not bothered at all by his statement that the male protestors, because some of them might be collectivists, aren’t men and his pretty clear inference that women are inferior morally. You want commentors to behave with cool detachment, but beginning an essay in the way Bill did is just a man “exerting his sexuality”? That doesn’t seem very intelligent or balanced to me. If Bill opened his essay with a slur on African Americans, would you be asking people not to hurt his feelings with any “attacks” because he was just asserting his racial pride?

    October 18, 2011 at 4:03 pm

  12. Good God, talk about a tempest in a teapot, it is fortunate that I did not dare to say some ideas are superior to others or that sex can dictate differences in viewing the world because of the distinct cultural and neurological differences between men and women. I suppose there is some historical evidence that sexual differences can lead to different outcomes such as the waging of war or disparity in Nobel prize recipients. Like the IQ and sex difference arguments proffered by libertarian Charles Murray:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/charles-murray-re-enters-great-american-inequality-debate

    It appears that if certain subjects like sex differences are taboo even among libertarians then honest conversation may not be as forthcoming as we thought.

    Murray even says:

    “One interesting fact that Murray doesn’t mention is that the much-demonized IQ researcher Cyril Burt was the first to determine that women were equal to men in intelligence. British psychometrician Chris Brand writes:

    “[I]n 1912, the British psychologist Cyril Burt overturned Victorian wisdom by finding males to have the same average general intelligence as females (using the new Binet tests from France), [and] this finding was replicated in countless investigations (and qualified by the observations that males have a wider range of IQs—thus producing more geniuses and more mental defectives—and that adolescent boys only temporarily lag behind adolescent girls in mental development).”

    The majority of psychometricians, including, most notably, Arthur Jensen, support Burt’s finding of mean gender equality. (However, Richard Lynn has a paper coming out arguing that men average a third of a standard deviation—or five points—higher in IQ).

    Nor is there any dispute that, just as Summers said, at the extreme right edge of the Bell Curve, from which Harvard’s math and science professors are drawn, there are more men than women.”

    Per my first sentence, there are those who think that some ideas are better than others otherwise I would not be a libertarian anarchist nor would people wish to attend Libertopia. My “slur” in the first sentence was to catalog an unmanly virtue and assign a negative connotation to collectivists, those who wish wish to live at the expense of others through violence. I like Goad’s message because he delineates a slick distinction between naked force and a veiled iron fist preference between men and women respectively. There is no notion that men are perfect beings and plenty of women will tell you otherwise. Wait, that certainly confuses the issue, doesn’t it? Cavalier man-hating is a fully approved media phenomenon much like the sly cultural permission to denigrate Southern men as hicks and simpletons. Yet if the tables are turned on women, the jokes are not so funny. So deems the common wisdom.

    One would think that critical thinking would demand better of us.

    I happen to think that notions of sex-selected supremacism for either gender in general is silly but in particular has tremendous merit e.g., women will always be better barrel racers and ballerinas while men will always be stronger in the aggregate to prevail in MMA fights, physiology does not lie but it is more complex than that.

    October 18, 2011 at 4:56 pm

  13. Jesse Mathewson

    Actually I called for mutual effort to a common goal, not once but twice-

    My honest opinion is people are not equal and should not strive to be, instead we should strive to be the best individuals we can be. We should in my opinion, strive to do no harm as well. But more importantly we should strive to discontinue the usage of political correctness, and words like “rights” (what are those if not man or god granted?) and “equality” all of us are unique and should bask in that, I am no equal of Sharon or Bill and I am proud of that, I would hope however that I could be a peer…definitions, reality not politically correct bullshit- I meant what I said earlier please read it again…:)

    As for Bill, I have not brought personal anythings in to this, you and Sharon did…so yes, he is a good friend, and NO I do not agree with everything he says…ask him 🙂 😉

    Why can’t we push liberty over agendas! Isnt that the entire purpose of “Libertopia?”

    October 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm

  14. Jesse Mathewson

    I must as a side note say, I am amazed that Sharon would decline an opportunity to trounce a menial like myself or Bill? Why decline an invitation to a public forum/written (your choice) unless you are unsure as to your ability to put forth a cognizant message without your facebook peer group?

    Who knows you may change my mind or others as to the futileness of politically correct “state approved” approaches for a libertarian/ liberty minded approach…

    October 18, 2011 at 6:53 pm

  15. I don’t debate with people who are insulting to me or who use emotional blackmail in an attempt to manipulate me.

    October 18, 2011 at 7:38 pm

  16. “I don’t debate with people who are insulting to me or who use emotional blackmail in an attempt to manipulate me.”

    Nor do I so I think that concludes our conversation.

    October 19, 2011 at 7:18 am

  17. Jim Klein

    Wow…is this thread for real? Say it ain’t so, that it’s just some comic theater.

    Sharon, I happen to agree with your main thesis…”While I find the unthinking, ill-informed anti-capitalist rhetoric of many of the people involved in this demonstration to be naive at best, and at worst, malicious, I think this is an oversimplified view of what is going on.”

    I think that’s right, and I think Bill has oversimplified the reality of OWS…there are lots of different motivations and ideologies going on besides the obvious super-leftist commie-lib ones. I haven’t seen too many that deserve much respect, but still I agree that you’re right about that. Everything else, you’ve got wrong. Just for starters:

    “I have studied political behavior for many years and have even done my own research in political behavior. Your commentary is opinion and rhetoric, not research.”

    Argument by Intimidation

    “I cannot trust the opinions of someone who would write like that.”

    Fallacy of Ad Hominem

    “Here are some of the responses that my Facebook post to this commentary received. Each one is made by a different person but only the ones who explicitly said I may use their names have been labeled.”

    Appeal to Consensus

    I could go on, but I’m not writing this to give you a logic review. I’m writing this because the world is going to hell in a handbasket and you’re all tied up about what WORDS a person used. That’s simply crazy IMO. You write,

    “I don’t debate with people who are insulting to me”

    Besides the not-irrelevant point that Bill wasn’t insulting to you, why would that stop you anyway? Is what you have to say valuable or not? If it is, then why would you care what someone else thinks about you? If your interlocuter is insulting, then wouldn’t it behoove you to demonstrate his/her errors, rather than try to pretend (via deletion) that it was never said in the first place?

    Do you understand that your views here are EVIDENCE of what Bill was saying?

    What do you imagine a free world might look like—that people are free to do as they wish, but unapproved WORDS won’t be tolerated? What kind of nonsense is this? People are being murdered and imprisoned by the State by the hour, and you’re worried about some guy’s view of women? Who the hell cares, AND WHY?

    I gave up on libertarianism decades ago…I could never tolerate that much losing, if nothing else. Plus, I think there are some serious philosophical flaws that don’t address the real principles. If this thread is any indication of the state of libertarianism today–I’m not saying it is, because I really don’t know–then all I’ve got to say is that once again, I was awfully prescient. To me, this is really sick…and I even AGREE with your main point!

    I’ll try to keep an eye open here if you’ve got any questions, or if you think I’ve got something wrong. And just so you know, you can be as insulting as you wish with me; I’m only interested in the facts of the matter. Thanks for your consideration.

    October 24, 2011 at 9:08 pm

  18. Miss Sharon says: I refuse to debate with someone who makes immature, sexist, anti-gay, gutter-snipe comments of the kind that Libertopia had the good sense to remove.

    Here is more of Bill’s “anti-gay” rhetoric posted on 11OCT2011 on his forum:

    http://zerogov.com/forum/index.php?topic=1079.0

    October 25, 2011 at 8:32 am

  19. Pingback: How Do We Change the World? « Occupy Your Brain

  20. Pingback: Zero Gov - Anti-Government, Pro-Liberty » Blog Archive » How Do We Change the World? by Jesse Mathewson

  21. Pingback: Change the world: take action « Jesse Talks Back

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