Is The Function of MONEY To Facilitate Theft?

This is a transcript of a discussion from my Discord server.
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)

markopolo112
Top 10 Libertarian Lies:
https://medium.com/@ykahan9/top-10-libertarian-lies-5b2033994ee6

bbblackwell > markopolo112
Libertarians are statists, so of course their message is riddled with holes. Once you concede the concept of valid authority over sentient beings, you’ve forfeited the game.

Be it Gary J. or Benito M., it’s all rooted in the same core concept: slavery.

markopolo112
…oh yeah, I forgot it was about the libertarian PARTY, not the movement, that was a point I emphasized with the incredibly retarded occupy democrats meme a couple hours ago, so I just forgot who they were referring to. yeah, carry on then.

though a few are sus regardless, particularly the trickle down economics one(a strawman created by democrats of supply-side economics levied against Ronald Reagan during the 1976 Republican presidential primary THAT NO ONE ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN)

The a deregulated market helps the poor and the middle class one, though not for the reasons you think, but because the concept of deregulation is a spook, which is just them missing the point about the nature of political rule, the fact that deregulation is still a government policy, since the State’s capacity for exercising leverage over people and their resources is completely intact, and that that deregulation can benefit the state from an increase in tax revenue through gdp growth.

a video would better illustrate the problem with “deregulation” itself:
Legalization VS Freedom – The Libertarian Case Against Deregulation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8PkY_LTErQ&t=602s

if it was about the libertarian movement, there would be a lot more to add, and I would go after every single point on there.

bbblackwell > markopolo112
I’m glad you bring this up with people. I have the same convo with the weed crowd (of which I’m grandfathered in, but generally non-practicing).

Economics itself is a hyper-intellectualized children’s game. Money is a tool for skewing value, thus allowing for an unnatural accumulation of an artificially necessary resource, resulting in an unnaturally broad power differential.

As such, money is inconsistent with freedom, as is all trade rooted in subjective valuation.

But, ya know… bowties and tweed jackets go a long way toward lending credence to economists, despite this mortal flaw in their philosophy.

Abdul > bbblackwell
How do we best solve for this in a society that requires money to almost do anything?

The idea of money is seemingly so entrenched in people (probably more so than statism), it has become THE tool or language to communicate value.

I know you suggested a gift based economy model instead, I’m just not seeing how we’ll get there considering where we are atm.

A lot of people in the freedom movement are looking to decentralised crypto, and I think that is the step in the right direction, but ofc it won’t solve the fundamental probem with money.

bbblackwell > Abdul
I often think of how nigh unto impossible it must have seemed to wrest the Americas from the grip if its peculiar institution of African-American slavery.

It was the economical foundation of those nations involved in the Trans-Atlantic trade (either directly or indirectly). To people in many areas, the whole world seemed to rest upon the bleeding backs of their chattel bondsmen.

Imagine the implausibility of releasing millions of uneducated, unwanted, and utterly destitute wanderers into the population. It must have seemed absurd beyond reckoning, never mind nightmarish.

You know all this already, but I’m hammering on the point because I believe this is the only significant hurdle to overcome—the inability to imagine how it can be done.

If, starting tomorrow, every person simply did what they usually do, but skipped the part where currency is exchanged, everything would plod along just fine. Homeostasis would be maintained.

Spend some time really imagining this (if you haven’t already). Picture the path of a dollar throughout the day—it serves no purpose. The money is just an illusory permission slip for people to “pay it forward”.

So this proves there’s nothing we have to unravel other than our own thoughts; and small groups can begin doing this to get the ball rolling. And once the money’s out of it, we’d see many businesses revealed as utterly unnecessary and undesirable for all involved. With no motivation to force their existence, they’d fade away, redirecting an unfathomable amount of material resources and human attention toward endeavors of true inspired passion.

How do we get from there from here? It’s a problem in thought, so the first step is getting the solution on the table. We can’t deem it too impractical or unlikely to mention. Also, we could try to give away our own labor for free (as much as possible), and generally adopt a pay it forward mindset.

s4tch1t > bbblackwell
How is money a tool for skewing value? The whole function of money is to carry economic value through space and time.

bbblackwell > s4tch1t
I would rephrase that to say the “whole function” of money is to facilitate theft, while its ostensible purpose is to store value.

Such is the way of the great robbers: to make the insidious appear benign. School’s whole function is to enlighten young minds; government’s whole function is to provide order to society; money’s whole function is to serve as a neutral means of exchange. But we know better by deduction and observable effects.

And so this question has arisen in the proper channel… Anarchy means “no rulers”, and the dark golden rule is “he who has the gold makes the rules”… This reveals the common assertion of money’s neutrality to be an argument-against-anarchy, as sure as any other (though often made unwittingly).

It is a tenet of the poisoned worldview that value is merely a subjective perception. Something is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. This is an exact parallel to the idea of moral relativism, used to justify arbitrary legislation, and thereby mass slavery. All roads lead to Rome, indeed.

Our subjective valuations relate to objective phenomena, and thus may be correct or incorrect (just like our individual moral concepts). That objective phenomena is the actual real-world effect we expect a purchase to have. This can never be quantified accurately at the outset of a transaction.

That inaccuracy is what’s leveraged by robbers to siphon off the fruits of others labor, allowing them to stockpile it in unnaturally large quantities, and in a symbolic form that will serve as a motivator to all people—regardless of their individual needs or desires—when offered back to them in exchange for their compliance.

It’s just another con, another tool of slavery, and it’s stronger, stealthier, and more effective than government. But whether it’s the carrot or the stick, they got us dancing to their tune as soon as we buy into any of their artificial constructs.

s4tch1t > bbblackwell
The whole function of money and why it naturally arises as a succesor to barter is as more people participate and as the division of labour becomes more diverse, money increases the scope of what an individual can now acquire from others. I see no sinister motive in something that arises out of voluntary exchange among people. I see evil intent in the monopoly on money enforced by government. But no one forces the concept of money among other beings, it is something people voluntarily use to expand the possibilities of trade. There’s no ‘one band of robbers’ who are ‘required’ for the existence of money. As a matter of fact the existence of money has come out through the realization that it increases the ability of an individual to fulfill his desires in mutually beneficial transactions and has made society more prosperous as a whole. Value is subjective, and I don’t see any ill intent in people voluntarily exchanging goods both parties value to get what they ‘subjectively’ value either. I see this as a win-win, and money acting as the good that most/all parties in trade value only increases the chances of mutualy beneficial transactions occurring.

bbblackwell > s4tch1t
Yes, I’m familiar with the yarn; you’ve recounted it well. There’s much asserted without support, and you’ve described what you “see” or “don’t see”, but I challenge you to clean the slate and evaluate the matter with new eyes.

No, there’s no one band of robbers, but they are all of one mind. Your average “anarchist” entrepreneur loves the theft just as much as anyone else, and hopes to be master himself one day. He just wants it all clean and tidy with a supportive (though fallacious) philosophy of morality.

If you’re ever interested in exploring this topic afresh, without preconceptions, let me know. I’m always willing.

s4tch1t > bbblackwell
Would love to hear you explain why you believe that ‘Money is a tool for skewing value, thus allowing for an unnatural accumulation of an artificially necessary resource, resulting in an unnaturally broad power differential. As such, money is inconsistent with freedom, as is all trade rooted in subjective valuation ‘.

As I see it, every individual wants something that best allows them to realize their own personal desires, trade allows multiple individuals to do so in a mutually beneficial way by exchanging goods multiple parties value(money) with each other for other goods. It’s the next logical step after barter. I don’t see how barter between two people is inconsistent with freedom, because in the case of money(which is basically a good most people involved in the trade values), you literally barter one good for another, that being exchanging the good of money with something else.

bbblackwell > s4tch1t
Yes, people want something that allow them to realize their own desires, and place subjective valuations on items based on their speculation about how well those items will effect those desired ends. They place bets relative to a future manifested reality, an objective phenomenon. The subjective valuation targets the forthcoming objective value.

The item bought will have an effect over the course of its interaction with the person, which will align with their initial expectation to varying degrees (and almost never precisely).

This alignment is the objective phenomenon being speculated upon at the outset. The item you trade and the item traded for will each have future effects (real value) that are unknown and nearly impossible to quantify. All trade is thus rooted in an attempt to do the impossible. Not a promising beginning…

The spread between the initial expectation and the future reality can be exploited to allow real value to flow in a particular direction (thus the manipulations of advertising which seek to increase expectation to exceed actual value delivered, in order to attain an advantageous spread). This is the goal of all business, and those who get good at it gain real power, in the form of the misappropriated labor-created value being made to serve their own will.

This is a brief illustration of how subjective valuations (which all trade, including barter, is based upon) skew real value to create an exploit.

Were there no manufactured exploit, it would be impossible for a division between rich and poor to exist in excess of what individual labor and available natural resources allowed. An artificial and unwarranted redistribution of labor’s fruits must be present for such extreme discrepancies to occur.

s4tch1t > bbblackwell
“They place bets relative to a future manifested reality, an objective phenomenon. The subjective valuation targets the forthcoming objective value.

The item bought will have an effect over the course of its interaction with the person, which will align with their initial expectation to varying degrees (and almost never precisely).

This alignment is the objective phenomenon being speculated upon at the outset. The item you trade and the item traded for will each have future effects (real value) that are unknown and nearly impossible to quantify. All trade is thus rooted in an attempt to do the impossible. Not a promising beginning…”

Sure, individuals do bet on which tradeable goods can best help them fulfill their desire, and it may or may not align with their expectations, and the degree to which it does align can vary. If the degree doesn’t align with their expectations(to their satisfaction) then they won’t buy the same good again(or won’t buy it from the same person ). The good or person who doesn’t best fulfill/exceed the expectations of others involved in the trade to an acceptable degree(which would be subjective) would be flushed out. There’s an active incentive for people in a trade to sell goods that then best align with the expectations of others(in degrees that the other person is happy with, and an incentive to go beyond their expectations also exists).

“The spread between the initial expectation and the future reality can be exploited to allow real value to flow in a particular direction (thus the manipulations of advertising which seek to increase expectation to exceed actual value delivered, in order to attain an advantageous spread). This is the goal of all business, and those who get good at it gain real power, in the form of the misappropriated labor-created value being made to serve their own will.”

The goal of business in a market is to provide products that can best align with the expectations of the buyer or even exceed them. The business that does this best wins. Advertisements do help business to an extent, but it’s in no way a safeguard. A company that provides mediocre goods to its consumers cannot be saved by advertiesment alone. In fact, Tesla which in a short period of time became one of the biggest names in the car industry didn’t spend a penny on advertising for most of their time, they won the market because they exceeded the expectations of their customers by providing practicality, speed, comfort and so many other advanced features that no other company offered in the range, exceeding the expectations of the customers. This then forced companies like Ford to innovate and offer better products to the consumer, their latest electric car is doing well(though not as well as Tesla).

There is an incentive for producers to offer goods that better align with or exceed the consumers expectations, there’s no incentive for them to provide goods that less align with the consumers expectations to then steal value.

bbblackwell > s4tch1t
Yes, this is certainly the goal of most businesses—to meet or exceed expectations—whether by artificially manipulating desires and expectations, or by honestly seeking a harmonious match.

The point is that theft occurs even if they meet or exceed expectations, because expectations and fulfilled desires don’t determine value. Heroin provides net negative value to an addict regardless of these factors, and value is likewise objective and independent in all other circumstances. Knowing or not knowing what’s good for us doesn’t alter value in the slightest.

Let‘s focus on the primary proof that value is being skewed and theft is occurring: the fact that major wealth disparities occur that are not directly caused by equivalent disparities in labor or available resources.

How can this be, if the fruit of one man’s labor is not being siphoned off and shuttled to an unmerited other? Imagine a world without trade… How might a man create vastly more canoes, or accumulate vastly more mangoes than everyone else?

Does he have more hours in a day? Can any amount of human skill, strength or speed account for the difference? Is he alone on an island of mangoes that no one else can reach? Do sound-minded people gift them to him despite their lack and his excess? How can he have 10,000 mangoes, while everyone else has only 5, if some form of theft did not occur?

And here is where it’s important to understand the objective nature of value, because it reveals how theft can occur even in an entirely voluntary scenario. The thief may not even intend immorality, but somewhere a man’s labor is creating X value and he’s only receiving <X, because, by some means, King Mango is is getting the rest, and it’s happening to a degree only possible where a misalignment with Truth is occurring.

Abdul > bbblackwell
Ofc as you know, I’m not the one that needs convincing that a moneyless world is possible. My focus (and interest) is how we can get there from where we are, and considering my honest assessment of people at this time, I believe we simply cannot get there in one swoop; there likely has to be a multi-stage process (a weaning off period if you like).

“If, starting tomorrow, every person simply did what they usually do, but skipped the part where currency is exchanged, everything would plod along just fine.”

The truth is though, without money, everything as a result would be drastically different. Even as you suggest, businesses as they exist today simply wouldn’t exist. It’s a world where amazon no longer exists, because amazon no longer needs to exist. But atm we are far away from that reality.

Based on my experiences in the last year, I’ve found that “gifting” your time, energy, and resources in a money driven world is not only unsustainable, but it essentially becomes a form of voluntary servitude. The only way anyone can keep continuing such a thing is if it’s in their hearts passion to do so, but otherwise, it becomes something opposite to that, and resentment envelops as a result.

In a society that requires money to do almost anything, gifting my time and energy wasn’t free, it cost me a lot (quite literally). Me not receiving any financial support to cover my own costs essentially meant that I was paying out of my own pocket to work for someone else… Yes it was voluntary work, and I did learn a lot from the experience, but imo the amount of time and energy I put in wasn’t worth it just for that and a couple of “thanks”. By the end of it all, I essentially felt robbed of my time and energy.‎

What I’m trying to say is that if the other person you are gifting your time and energy to isn’t also supporting you, this gifting thing doesn’t work. “Thanks” is definitely not an equivalent exchange for several months of tiring hard work, even an inadequate amount of money would have been a better token of gratitude. I went in knowing I will recieve nothing, but now I’m thinking that it was a mistake, as my time and energy wasn’t really valued nor respected (and this is because money wasn’t involved). I realized that giving my time away for free (especially for high skill work) devalued the kind of work I was doing, and the person in question was feeling entitled rather quickly.

I did this one job as a gift, but I’m not doing it again.

Based on that experience, and listening to similar experiences from others, you simply can’t have a gifting economy running alongside a money driven one, because the people gifting their time and energy will be taken advantage of. For a gifting economy to work, everyone would already have to be abundant, otherwise you end up with the same issue with money: some people end up gaining at the expense of others.

bbblackwell > Abdul
Oh yes, everything would drastically change if money were instantly removed (for the better if the populace were enlightened, for the worse if their minds remained dark). My only point was that the money doesn’t actually do anything, so things needn’t change.

It’s not the same as if we removed electricity or metal, or some legitimately critical component. People think money is what’s making the whole thing happen, but if instead of “paying” we just shook hands, nothing need be altered anywhere in the world for the whole thing to continue just the same.

But this can’t be successful in a vacuum. You’re experience is a result of you being the only one participating. Sort of reminds me of ol’ John Brown’s personal war against slavery—it didn’t end well.

“Society” is supposed to be cooperative. If it can’t accomplish this, it will function competitively (as a perverse version of what should otherwise be, i.e., evil).

You can give away your work for free without direct compensation, but when you need a pair of shoes, the shoe guy’s gotta be just as generous (as does everyone else). But it doesn’t have to be the whole world at once, or even a whole city. You need at least a community beginning it together, though.

Did you listen to Michael Tellinger’s explanation of the One Small Town model? He explains how a contributionist community can co-exist with a world still engaged in trade (even full-blown fiat currency trade like we have now).

No one need be taken advantage of because people still own their goods and services. If someone’s being a leech, they could refuse further service. This will dissuade and functionally defend against free-riding (until authentic humanity begins to emerge ubiquitously in the culture).

Abdul > bbblackwell
“But this can’t be successful in a vacuum. You’re experience is a result of you being the only one participating.”

I think this is the key lesson to take, in order for any of this to work, we really do need to be “all in this together”. The tyrants and sheep have hijacked that slogan to fit their false narratives, but the slogan is still true nonetheless: whether it be for false narratives or true/moral ones, if we’re not all in this together, it just doesn’t work…

In other words, if enough people don’t believe it, there would be no pandemic. The same thing applies with money: if enough people don’t believe in it, it just doesn’t work anymore. Same with a moneyless world: if enough people believe it’s not possible, it isn’t.

The belief in money is what upholds it; it’s 100% make believe, and as you already know, this gives rise to all kinds of issues.

In my own experience, what became clear to me is that even if you technically remove money away from the equation, if that money mindset is still there, it just doesn’t work out. Or putting it another way, if your needs and wants are being taken care of, but mine aren’t, that’s simply a recipe for failure; such a relationship cannot be reasonably sustained. You need to have enough care about my needs and wants as I do yours, else the relationship falls apart.

Regarding my own experience, it’s partly my own fault for not making it clear that there was a limit to how much I can offer my time and expertise without any expectation of recompense (at that time). There was simply too many unknowns going into the project, and my only promise was that I’ll see it through to the end… Which in hindsight I see was a mistake, but being a man of my word, I saw it through the end regardless. The cost was time more than money, but I value my time highly, and hate it more than anything when I feel like I’ve wasted too much of it.‎

There is much we can explore here, and yes I am very aware of all of Michael Tellinger’s works, including his one small town model. There was a lot of lessons learnt over the years, many of the failings that have occurred with Michael’s projects essentially has to do with the money mindset (and also statism). I feel Michael is missing the bigger picture in that area, in that not once have I heard him say that government is inherently illegitimate. In fact he was running a political campaign some time ago, and ofc it failed for numerous reasons (ironically lack of funding being one of them).

Someone like Larken Rose on the other hand totally gets all the problems with statism, but completely fails to acknowledge any of the issues with money at all…

What we need is Larken’s “Most Dangerous Superstition” and Michael’s “Ubuntu Contributionism” coming together, and throw Bashar in there to commence the marriage, and we’ll truly end up with a very special baby.

(throw in another mystery figure that you may or may not be aware of, and weave it all in beautiful storyline, and you might have an idea of where my own book is heading).

bbblackwell > Abdul
That says it all. So, the universe is still functioning properly: If it ain’t Love, it won’t work. There’s no way around it.

As creators in an environment of mentalism, belief will carry the day no matter what. That’s why freedom can’t just be about “no government” any more than peace can just be about “no hitting”.

Yeah, all these great teachers are missing something; Passio least of all, seemingly, though he’s struggling mightily to focus his message away from humanity’s failure and toward the healing nature of Love (though he’s certainly aware of it).

And from another perspective, all this intellectualization is folly. I mean, according to many spiritual teachers, we have the power to individually shift into a more favorable reality, so what’s the use of promulgating moral philosophy?

It would be ludicrous to presume that our recognition of their missing pieces implies that we have it all figured out, but I don’t see anything glaring at the moment. That’s why I keep floating these ideas to see if anyone can spot any holes.

Abdul > bbblackwell
It seems like discord cut off some of my message there… Luckily I save what I write on a separate note app, just in case discord decides to act buggy.

It won’t probably won’t make as much sense reading it out of context, but here it is anyway:

…simply getting rid of the money doesn’t necessarily seem to solve the money problem—which is actually the money mindset.

Money I feel is an expression of a deeper faulty belief system or psyche. Getting rid of the outer manifestation doesn’t quite get rid of the internal error (if that makes any sense?). Take the external money away, and the internal error simply manifests in other ways, e.g. selfishness, ingratitude, entitlement, failing to consider the needs/wants of others, feeling the need to take advantage, etc.

None of those issues disappear when you get rid of money, if anything, such behaviours and attitudes become even more prevalent! I remember I tolerated so much crap in my previous job, if it wasn’t for the money, it would make absolutely zero sense to continue doing that kind of work. But the money almost made it worth sticking around long enough to tolerate it, take that away, and there would be nothing to tolerate anymore.

Removing the money exposes our misalignment, but that misalignment isn’t simply fixed by removing the money, it seems…

“My only point was that the money doesn’t actually do anything, so things needn’t change. It’s not the same as if we removed electricity or metal, or some legitimately critical component. People think money is what’s making the whole thing happen, but if instead of “paying” we just shook hands, nothing need be altered anywhere in the world for the whole thing to continue just the same.”

Yes, theoretically this is the case, but the reality is that the house of cards would fall down rather quickly (if not immediately).

Suddenly it no longer makes any sense to continue working that job you hate. Suddenly the power companies have no means to “charge” you, and they have no means to “pay” their employees, of whom which have no incentive to work, which means you have no power in your house. Suddenly, a self-sufficient power source (perhaps like an array of solar panels and batteries) makes a whole lot more sense than relying on monstrous centralised power stations of which everyone has to “pay” for.

This is just one small area of life, imagine the ramifications in all areas of our lives, I think chaos would be imminent, but that would be society reshuffling/readjusting itself to a more aligned way of existence; money keeps us all comfortably misaligned.

In many ways, this isn’t too far off from our actual reality atm, with all that is happening, we all have a great opportunity to rethink what money means to us as a collective society, as well as work in general.

To add another perspective to this discussion, I think the core issue with money (though I am not sure exactly how to word this), is this belief/ideology that you can somehow “buy authority” (aka attempt to make something inherently illegitimate legitimate).

Those who have the money have the currency to engage in commerce to “own” things, and hence gain “authority” over those things (and those who don’t have enough currency ofc lack such “authority”). The core issue for me is that the concept of money basically throws morality/nature out of the window, and replaces it with its own arbitrary set of “rules” (kinda like what government does with its man-made “laws”). If there was a way for someone to own the world (or most of the world), common sense tells you that that can’t be right or legitimate. But money makes it “legitimate” (in the minds of money believers ofc). And hence now everyone on earth must “pay” the owners (this in essence gives rise to a master/slave relationship).

That was a simplified exaggerated example, but this is what’s essentially happening on a micro scale with billions of people in billions of different ways, and as more and more wealth gets accumulated into the hands of the few, that exaggerated example starts becoming the actual reality, where the few literally end up controlling the many (kinda like a government monopoly…).

It’s no surprise then that money and government are inextricably tied. If nobody believed in money, how will any government ever tax us? It would be impossible. If two parties engage in trade, and one of them buys something for x amount, the item in question does not in any objective way actually equate to that x amount, all that has occurred in reality is a simple consensus/agreement.

The core issue is that those who “own” the money supply, control the nature of these agreements (on a mass scale). In other words, money becomes another tool for “monopolistic control/force”.‎

It makes perfect sense for a man to own (steward) some land and a house or two. It makes zero sense for a man to own millions of households—in a moneyless world, how would such a scenario even come about?

Nature is a natural limiter, but with artificial “money” there simply are no limits; how can there be with something that is completely fictitious? It simply does not correspond in anyway to actual nature—to the actual reality of things.

No amount of money should enable you to buy the world and everything in it, yet in commerce world, such an absurd proposition theoretically is possible.

Nobody should have to work almost half their life away to pay off a mortgage (that doesn’t even really exist). And “consent” doesn’t make it right either—there are just too many missteps to count; this is a case where we ought to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start from scratch.

That’s not gonna happen ofc with masses of devout followers/believers, but the point I’m making is that, like with government, money is yet another fictitious concept (aka another “lie”), and a world full of lies cannot be a good one (as is clearly evident today, with the masses so utterly enamoured by monstrous lies).

At least this is another way to look at it. I’m not so sure if the “skewed value” approach is tackling the core issue—it’s more of a consequence when you falsely believe in the lie that it’s possible for someone to “buy authority” over something or someone.

The real “theft” is simply occurring with people’s time and energy; money (via all its arbitrary/artificial complexity) makes that extortion “legitimate” and easy to commit i.e. it manufacturers consent where no such consent would occur under natural circumstances.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
It appears you think social constructs create a “world full of lies” and thus not a good world. Interesting take.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Just my honest observation of the world today. I can’t honestly tell you it’s a good world overall. Some aspects are good, but many are not.

Social constructs can be bad or good depending on how they’re used. It’s perfectly possible to use money for example in a good way, however, with my post above, I’m trying to get at the core of something Juan.

But yes, money is essentially yet another “social construct”.

Join our Discord server!
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX
Let’s have a LIVE chat!

Find me at:
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3083/
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3783/
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3883/
http://www.facebook.com/ampthirtyeightythree
https://odysee.com/@AMP3083:4

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