Emotions Are Not Free

People say: ”Oh, we are free to think and feel as we see fit!” But this is not true in several deep, even brutal, unavoidable, ways, many of them hidden. Elites have always known that hearts are the core of what needs to be controlled. On this their power rests, since before there were pyramids, and they stood.

Only 7,000 Gestapo agents watched 80 million Germans. Hitler could not have held Germany with them alone. So how did Hitler do it? With very strong emotions.

Pascal famously said: “Le Coeur a ses raisons que la Raison n’a point.” Those reasons of the heart deserve to be known, not just because they are reasons, too, and not just because they dictate to rationality itself, but also because they can be manipulated in ways that ought to be, and are already partly, made unlawful.

Instead of denying that there is spiritual and emotional control out there, as the meek insist, I propose to embrace control… be it only to dissect it with gusto.

Throughout the reigns of Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, “progressives” and “liberals” have been played like violins. It has not been much better in Europe.

In both cases, the People was persuaded to engage in public service by forking public money to private banks so that the hyper rich could stay hyper rich (it was done with semantic smokes and mirrors. To this day, most of We The People understands nothing to what happened).

How was We The People made so blind? To start with, even indignation was in short supply.

Pulling at their heart strings of We The People just so, enabled ever increasing plutocratization. That’s done by hammering continually the fallacious association between bad economy, and deficits. And thus impregnating the emotion, in the public, that public spending is bad (and thus implicitly that the rich ought to go tax-free).

How hearts can be bent out of their natural shape.

A well-known saying is that one person’s freedom ends where another nose’s starts. But that’s not so easy: after all, just threatening to hit someone else is an assault. Also what about public nose, public space, etc.? Are plutocrats not infringing on everybody’s public space when they made society so that only their money is endowed with power?

In any case, all and any law controls actions. However, controlling emotions and thoughts is just controlling the origin of actions.

The best minds of the (French) Republic, after a monster fight to death with racial mass murdering fascism of the demented type, in the period 1914-1945, were confronted to a paradox: Germany was, in 1900, the most literate country in the world. However enough of the German population got maneuvered into beastly madness to make their nation the tool of monstrosity.

What went wrong? The heart. German hearts had been taught wrong. Nietzsche screamed this from every roof top, by 1888, and before. A teenager such as Einstein fully agreed, and fled Germany (Einstein the rebel, later did enough discoveries for 4 or 5 Nobel Prizes in physics, most of them for work in… Quantum Physics).

German hearts had been bent out of shape by the plutocrats who owned Germany (enabled by a somewhat self-destructive alliance-symbiosis with various Anglo-American plutocrats).

Starting even before the World War was finished, many medium level intellectuals in France deduced that an example had to be made, to strike the hearts even more than the certainly grandiose, but somewhat suicidal, Republic’s attack against Hitler in September 1939.

So the French Republic executed more than 40,000 Nazi collaborators, with a judicial ferocity that even republican Rome never knew. But not just this. Anti-hatred laws were passed.

Some will object: ”Wait, they execute all these collaborators, and then pass anti-hatred laws? Is not that self contradictory?” No. You see, the collaborators were guilty. Those they killed were innocent. Anti-hatred laws are against the killing mood. Killing killers is also a way to kill the same killing mood, especially for future reference.

So let’s recapitulate: the criminal insanity that gripped Germany, a pure product of plutocratic control, was a case of total manipulation of the deepest heart strings. The same happened in places such as the USSR, where dozens of millions were killed because of the emotional deformation of common moujiks.

One could see something similar in the USA when G.W. Bush launched his legion in a war of aggression in Iraq. It was a time when most citizens of the USA goose stepped behind Bush, just because an employee of the CIA, Bin Laden, had killed .1% of the number of individuals that the actions of Carter had killed in Afghanistan. Of course that made no emotional sense: the USA had started it all, and pursued it all, and taught Bin Laden the nastiest ways. Instead of marching to Baghdad, justice ought to have marched to Washington.

Yet, just as German hearts had been taught it was all the fault of the Jews, and Russians, that of the Capitalists (whatever that is), the Americans got emotionally persuaded that it was all the fault of Bin Laden’s enemy, Saddam Hussein (whatever “it” was).

So hearts are already getting manipulated. It’s high time that justice gets to see how lawful those manipulations are. It’s all a question of manipulating hearts for the best. As it is already done, all too often, for the worst.

For example the fossil fuels plutocrats have made the public in many Anglo countries (USA, Canada, Australia), hysterical CO2 deniers. How? The fossil fuel maniacs spent enough money to incite heart manipulators to teach the right notion. Hence a new religion, climate denial. A religion made to serve the likes of the Koch brothers, mighty plutocrats them all.

As long as the emotion that there is nothing wrong with fossil fuels, and CO2 reigns, it will be hard to do anything serious against the CO2 mania. How to feel right about it? Well, maybe by realizing that spewing CO2 is a form of hatred. And there the law can help.

Hatred is an emotion, but it is not a free emotion anymore. It is an emotion under watch, that can be struck by the law.  

Hate speech has become criminal, even in the USA. The fact such laws were duplicated from France does not make them any less American. Total freedom of expressed emotions is already a thing of the past, and rightly so.

I have no problem doing the same at the United Nations, and even using anti-hate laws as a ram against customs that I don’t like (such as circumcision, or regimes that are too satanic). So it’s a matter of legislating my superior taste… ;-)!

Some, such as Tom Alex, a contributor to the comments on this site, have objected that: “How can feelings be criminal? This is absolute totalitarianism, where the state -and actually a FOREIGN state- believes it can and should have a say and furthermore control and penalize feelings through some judge. Plutocrats would absolutely love that. Been fired and have hard feelings towards your ex-boss? You’re a hateful ****, and should go to jail. Posting against plutocrats? You’re spreading hate.”

The origin of Tom Alex’s worries were my approval of the indictment of Bob Dylan for “public insult and incitation to hatred, for comparing (existing, innocent) Croats to (dead) Nazis, and justifying a hatred (existing) Serbs are supposed to “sense” when exposed to their “blood”, the usual recital of those who want to justify hateful antagonistic atavism.

A few points: one can have all the feelings and thoughts one wants. The problem is PUBLICLY EXPRESSED hateful emotions, of the UNJUSTIFIED type.

Thus, the devil is in the details. I am going to come out with a stridently hateful (some will say) essay against (the hateful gross and mass murdering friendly leadership of) Japan. I don’t mind, it’s the exact target of that mental torpedoes volley. What I will publicly say is both true and justified. That makes it completely different.

Zola went to jail, big time, during the Dreyfus affair for the famous “J’Accuse!”. In it, him, and other top intellectuals, accused publicly the elite of the French Republic of a criminal conspiracy. Well, they were right. Ultimately, everybody got exonerated, starting with Captain (later Colonel) Dreyfus. More than that: anti-Judaism in France got lethally wounded (this is why most Jews in France survived WWII’s Gestapo, whereas nearly all Dutch Jews died).

If I suggest that French and Croat Nazi collaborators of the worst type ought to have been executed. Well, that’s OK, because those were terrible people doing horrendous things. A trial would determine that those people ought to have suffered the worst treatment, indeed. In this spirit, Norway, the Netherlands, and others, re-instituted the death penalty against Nazi collaborators after WWII, just for them. Fine.

Having strong anti-UNJUSTIFIED-hatred laws will help the search for truth.

And that’s what we need. You want to hate KGB’s Putin, or Tojo-loving Abe? Be my guest. And do it publicly, and question why Russia and Japan need to humiliate themselves that much, while, implicitly, thanks to the brutality they deploy and worship, threatening us all.

The calculus of hate and aggression needs to be refined. Because justice and progress need to be armed and stronger than the alternative.

For example GW Bush ought to be prosecuted for war crimes. Among them, war of aggression, a hate crime.

Attacking North Korea, even preventively, would not be a war of aggression, as North Korean leaders already threatened the USA (and others) with nuclear strikes (!). Similarly, France’s unilateral attack of Hitler in September 1939, was not a war of aggression, whatever the Nazis said at the time. Indeed, the Nazis had repeatedly attacked civilization and human rights first.

Hating hatred for real requires justice to be involved. One cannot leave plutocrats, be they the Kaiser, Stalin, or G.W. Bush to be free to mold, knead and brutalize hearts as they see fit. As civilization progresses, and becomes ever more intelligent, just as a matter of survival, so justice has to.

Patrice Aymé


Notes: On French trans-national jurisdiction. There is a common European citizenship. It’s entirely in the realm of French justice to react when citizen of the same polity (Europe) are hated by whoever, be it a citizen of the USA.

Moreover, for questions of Human Rights, French justice tends to apply worldwide.

On the USA’s indifference to the plutocratic obscenity, a learned emotion: Watch Obama meeting, twice, with all the plutocrats he could find, in December 2013. First with the health care crats. Just six of them, around the table with their crat in chief, made 100 million dollars, in the preceding few months. One could see the problem of USA health care, just there: the filth of riches.

Then there was the meeting with the high tech spies (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc.): how can we manipulate the truth? By flaunting his associations to the hyper rich he regularly begs for money like a pigeon hungry for crumbs, Obama has taught everybody in the USA a weird, twisted, masochistic, debasingly insane emotion, gratification by plutocratization. A new sort of bully pulpit. Call it the pigeon perch.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

29 Responses to “Emotions Are Not Free”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    I think I follow your reasoning. But I am bound to say that what is essentially a simple message is delivered in a highly complicated manner. Even after two readings, some parts of your essay have me still scratching my head.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul: Hmmm… There was a large controversy in the initial “Hating Dylan” essay. I was astounded that it was so hard to understand the notion that the public display of some strong emotions, if unwarranted (= “unjustified”), and if they could lead to mayhem, should they be followed, should be repressed by law. It’s intrinsically highly complicated.

      Dogs read and follow emotions rather than instructions, remember? So do humans.

      So what parts cause problem?


      • Paul Handover Says:

        Let me respond later on in the day. Must go and repair a trailer just now! Oh, and so true about dogs and emotions. Indeed, they can often read a human’s emotion before that human is aware of that ‘up-coming’ emotion.


      • Paul Handover Says:

        “So what parts cause problem?”

        When you write, “Pulling at their heart strings of We The People just so, enabled ever increasing plutocratization.” I am at a loss of understanding how that was, or is being, done. Trust me, I’m not disagreeing just failing to understand the mechanisms involved.

        Later you write, “However, controlling emotions and thoughts is just controlling the origin of actions.” Again, without understanding how heart strings are ‘pulled’, it’s impossible to understand that our emotions and thoughts are controlled. Possibly influenced but not controlled.

        In effect, this confusion about exactly what it is you are highlighting continued to get in the way of my comprehension of your theme.

        Thus, “So hearts are already getting manipulated. It’s high time that justice gets to see how lawful those manipulations are. It’s all a question of manipulating them for the best. As it is already done, all too often, for the worst.” only reinforced my confusion.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Thanks for the help, Paul! First let me address: “Possibly influenced but not controlled.” I fail to make a difference between “strongly influenced” and “controlled”. If I strongly influence a dog, or I control her, well… As long as she does what I say.

          There were massive manipulations of the public psyche in the reign of Obama. We were told again and again, and again that the apparition at the helm of someone with a Caucasian mother and an father from Kenya with children around the world was going to be momentous. Well, that was not even the first USA president with a “black” ancestry. I remember one who admitted in a later that he was “black” by racist USA standards.

          Also Obama barely knew his adventurous father. He was brought by his white folks especially his grandparents. So he was basically a white guy with a grandmother who managed a bank. Plenty rich enough to afford the most exclusive school in Hawai’i, as Barry. This was all deliberately occulted, as a blackness of it all was celebrated non stop. That Obama just extended all of Bush’s programs was un-noticed.

          The manipulation on Obamacare were even greater: the hearts’ strings were pulled about covering the 50 millions who are getting no coverage. Opposing Obamacare, in any sense, was made into opposing covering the 50 millions.

          That was a gross manipulation. The obvious point that was completely occulted (although found on this site) was that, the way Obamacare went at it, the greatest defects of the health system of the USA would be left untouched.

          Differently from Obama I know plenty of hard working Americans of the underclass (I don’t think he ever met any). It is emotionally clear that such people, who have fallen out of the system in nearly all ways, could only be covered by an automatic system, not by a system where they had to do plenty of things… to be covered by the system.

          Another gross manipulation was the argument that one opposed Obama because of the color of his skin (exactly that of my spouse). Still another one was that the Democrats never got a majority in the Senate (!), so could not pass a public health care for all.

          To this day, the emotional argument is made that Obama failed because of Republican opposition. But all he did in the first two years, when he had control of the Senate and the Congress, and that Bush had not started already, down to the finest details, was to triple up in Afghanistan (thus most USA soldiers who died there died thanks to Obama, not Bush!).

          It’s all emotions, everywhere not just influencing debate, but even killing it.

          And one can go on this way. In the Wall Street (Journal or society), one hears all the time that the French are cowards. It’s incredibly well known. That allows to avoid any debate about what happened in World War Two.

          Namely the USA fully helping Hitler in the few months after the French Republic attacked Hitler. That’s just one aspect of it. There were others, such as the German generals telling the top Brits and top Americans that, should they announce the will of the UK and the USA to side with the French Republic, they would make a coup against Hitler. Instead those leaders informed the mad Fuerer that his generals were plotting against him.

          That, in turn, leads to further questions about why this happened. So an early emotion a huge lie, French cowardice, allows to hide something way worse: there was actually a plot to impose the (Anglo-) American century, by using Nazism as a ram. Too bad the USA backstabbed Britain, stating in 1944, with a number of tricks (just ask Keynes).

          Some will counteract by another emotional red herring: if there was a plot, where is the document? Well, there are written proofs of a plot in 1914: I showed them in detail in an earlier essay this fall. The same mistake was not done in 1939. And so on.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Paul: I have been trying to make the essay clearer by responding to your objections.


          • Paul Handover Says:

            Patrice, thank you. Yes, I now clearly see what you set out. Although I wish I didn’t. Simply for the reason that it leaves me feeling sick to my bones about the type of society in which we now live. (Both sides of the Atlantic, I would suggest.) With the scale of the challenges facing humanity in the near future, I fear the likely outcomes. This is the worst of times to have governments dancing to the music of the rich and powerful.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            I just added another portion just for you. Let me start another comment (too much nestling is impossible to read).


  2. Alexi Helligar Says:

    We are indeed free to think and feel as we see fit. “Freedom to love” is symmetrical to “Freedom to evil”. No law in society can dictate that. Physics indicate equilibrium and an ever increase in degrees of freedom. The desire to eradicate evil in the imagination and in words is itself an evil desire. Even worse than a useless desire, it is destructive. It is better to instruct in love through one’s own pure actions than to attempt to suppress evil thoughts or words.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      In all civilized societies, death threats are punishable by law. So is LOOKING at some sexual activities. Cannibalism among consenting adults is also punished. And so on. How to find out that Putin crossed the line into dictatorship? Well, it’s a not-so-refined philosophical analysis tells that sending people in cruel and humiliating detention for singing a song is, clearly over all the lines.


  3. gmax Says:

    Fine is the thin red line. But we are a nanotechnological civilization. Attention to the most minute details is what we are all about.
    I don’get the “anything goes” attitude of Tom, Alex…


  4. Paul Handover Says:

    Patrice, I left a comment on my Animal Rights post over at LfD requesting your permission to republish your REWILDING US essay tomorrow. Is that acceptable?


  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Dear Paul: Thanks for seeing with great dedication what I explained poorly.

    The unpalatable truth is, people can be trained, at their emotional level, just as dogs can be, and very similarly.

    An excellent proof of this had been the pro-CO2 campaign. That, it turns out, was paid by the Koch brothers and the like. It was highly effective, as serious efforts on CO2 have been blocked for 25 years.

    They mostly needed to block the USA, Australia and Canada, and they did this very effectively. In turn, that blocked the rest of the world (to avoid too much economic disadvantage). In those countries, any data about “climate change” is viewed at skeptically, by the Pavlovian trained populace.

    They have also been trained to focus on “climate change” when the real core of the problem is just the CO2.

    It’s nothing to despair about, though. Your own site makes great efforts towards the truths, and, as these efforts spread, one may hope that the truths will progress.

    The emotion that truth matters more than other passions one enjoyed previously, has to gain in importance. Only thus will the world turn for the best.



    • Paul Handover Says:

      Thank you. That last paragraph is going to be incorporated in a post I am composing for January 1st. The title of the post will be a single word: Integrity.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Thanks Paul, and thanks for the information about the 75% tax. Does not look like it, but I’m pretty secluded at high altitude in the Sierra. I added another essay pursuing our conversation. I look fwd the integrity essay. But I am condemned to teach skiing and related family matters for the rest of the day! ;_)! Some condemnations can be survived…


  6. Paul Handover Says:

    And a footnote. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25541739

    France’s highest court has approved a 75% tax on high earners that is one of President Francois Hollande’s signature policies.

    The initial proposal to tax individual incomes was ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council almost exactly one year ago.

    But the government modified it to make employers liable for the 75% tax on salaries exceeding 1m euros (£830,000).

    The levy will last two years, affecting income earned this year and in 2014.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It’s a start
      My plan:
      1) Make a worldwide registry of all property.
      2) Tax at Eisenhower rate (93%!!!) all the very rich, worldwide. No exception.
      Crack down on the foundations.
      That would be easy to do, just if the EU and the USA agreed (Australia and NZ, for example would have to submit, let’s they get punished by losing their preferential treatments)


  7. TomAlex Says:

    Greetings to all, I did not expect to get an entire post!
    I think we all agree that there is a thin line and the devil is in the details. Patrice’s argument rests on the premise that there are some things we all agree are indeed terrible and we should pull all the stops in fighting them. For instance nazi war criminals. No argument here. The problem starts when we start expanding
    and then we get totalitarianism, i.e. someone be that the US, the French state, Patrice or some god or religious leader who decides that things that are not unanimously understood to be really terrible need the same attention as nazi war crimes. Dylan is such a case, IMHO-it canot possibly be put on the same footing as nazi war crimes. The current north-south european issues have used much more hateful language on both sides, IMHO, when stupid generalizations were made. The language used by hardline republicans in the US against Obama -and similarly on the other side- can easily fall in the same category, yet it is (rightly IMHO) protected by the constitution. There is a serious issue on who decides. A US judge might argue for instance that Snowden’s revelations helped terrorists, but that position does not enjoy the unanimous approval that going after nazi war criminals gets. I can give many many examples, for instance at some point say Turkey enters the EU and a turkish judge
    sees fit to go after anyone who ‘insults turkishness’ or even mentions the G-word. Or, some other judge may decide that he does not like the israeli operations in Lebanon or Gaza-which were always responses btw. I already gave and Patrice repeated the example of how whe could get in big trouble if one were to apply that principle. This is why I believe there must a a small set of actionable things , such as nazi war crimes or pedophilia(btw not unanomously agreed on, e.g. islamic countries) that everyone agrees on and these things ought to be made ‘word illegal’, perferably by some sort of UN mandate.

    So that was my first point: Unanimity is a prerequisite.
    The second point is that even within unanimity, there are some things that must be protected and that is essentially free speech. Hence I am all in favor of any idiot speaking of ‘lazy southerners’, ‘lying northerners’, of preachers blasting the sinners, of Wilders warning about islam and so on as long as one stops short of saying ‘therefore we must take VIOLENT action against them’. If what is being spread is a lie, there are courts for that and we can and should increase slander penalties. But I do not favor say portugese or greek judges for example issuing arrest warrants ‘against hate-spreading german journalists who speak of lazy southerners’ or ducth judges prosecuting Wilders or any such nonsense.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Tom: Happy new year to you too!

      Dylan’s offense is of course not on a level with Nazi war crimes. First, he is not at war, killing people. All what justice wants from him is to understand that the public expression of particular feelings he publicly expressed and thus, ADVOCATED, was insulting, inciting hatred (against INNOCENT people; nothing wrong with inciting hatred against criminal activities!), and generally injurious to Peoples and peace. He just has to excuse himself, recognized he expressed himself poorly, and will not do it again, because there is nothing wrong with living Croats, and they should not be compared to Nazis (as Dyklan himself implied!)

      The whole idea is to kill hatred in the bud.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I have to run right now. More later.

      Just one point: the “hatred” of republicans against Obama is just a cover-up. Obama did everything the republicans wanted, both sides have had interest to hide this under… fake hatred.
      Obama implemented ALL Bush’s plans, and doubled up (figure of speech) on tax reductions. Then he implemented Romneycare, and so on.
      The fake “hatred” hides the intense pleasure the reps have wit their present Tea Party President…


  8. TomAlex Says:

    just to make it clear: Do you agree that for instance German newspapers blasting “lazy and corrupt southerners” are inciting hatred against ‘non-criminal people’ and should therefore be subject to the same criteria, e.g. apologize and never do it again or else?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Tom: It’s pretty much a question of degree about the violence of the insults and incitation to hatred. I listen to German TV, and don’t see any of that. It will strike many as tongue in cheek: everybody knows many of the southerners work much more than the Germans, and the corrupt networks crucially extended into banks… Northern banks. One of the largest collapse, the 100 billion Hypo Real Estate, was a giant German bank.

      What the Germans do not want to do is to pay for bankrupt southern banks. Apparently paying for bankrupt northern banks (French, British, German, etc.) has been fine so far.

      Nobody knows what a “southerners” is, anyway. Are the French southerners? Were the Nordics southerners, when their banks failed in the 1990s?


  9. TomAlex Says:

    everything you say is both true and to the point (although it’s primarily their banks that have lended the money, not southern banks). “Southerners” refers to PIIGS(though Ireland is certainly not ‘south’) and there are abundand articles and posts discussing ‘profilgate, lazy PIIGS’ who eat up the savings of thrifty, hard-working northerners. Is ‘those lazy, profligate bums are eating up our hard-earned savings’ an ‘incitation to hatred’? It sure stops short of ‘therefore let’s kill or physically harm them’, but IMHO Dylan was much farther away than this demarcation line. Should a french judge go after anyone who reiterates the laziness&profigalcy story and hence ‘incites hatred’?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Tom: There is a fine, but hardest, line between insults, hatred, and the truth. The truth is neither. Proffering the truth is, and ought to be, legal. I support Marine Le Pen (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) in her somewhat apparently similar, confrontation with French justice. Once again, the problem with Dylan is that he pushed forward a lie with grave consequences, that used to look like the truth, in the eyes of some. And his punition, at this point ought simply to tell the truth.
      The case of Le Pen is less easy, because her truth. although politically correct publications as The Economist view it as hateful, is still the truth.

      Same for our friend in The Netherlands. The Qur’an is a fascist, hate-full book (so is the Bible, the latter being greatly the cause of the former). That, justice too, has to admit. That’s why I support the wild Wilders on that point (Marine’s confrontation, still related to Islam is slightly different; her parliamentary immunity was removed by the European Parliament, BTW… Showing the pro-Qur’an disease extends well beyond France)


  10. TomAlex Says:

    thanks for the clarifications. So, if I understand you correctly ‘profilgate, lazy southerners’ (if not true) is incitement of hatred and should be prosecuted. The difficulty is finding the truth is NOT something that a judge is supposed to do: A judge is an expert in INTERPRETING the law (although it is not uncommon for a different judge to have a different view). So, take a famous biologist who believes and has advocated the notion that blacks are less intelligent than nonblacks. This guy was heckled and even physically attacked (although he is 90 years old now) by leftists. In my view(which is Voltaire’s) he should be protected under free speech and his theory should be OPENLY discussed in scientific, not LEGAL circles. In other words, SCIENTISTS and not JUDGES should judge what is true. JUDGES should only INTERPRET the law, ot rule on whether pigs can fly. In Wilders’s and Le Pen’s case I have the exact same position as you do, but independently of whether what they say is the truth or not. Because the other side can say ‘look, there is THIS ONE moslem who is really, really tolerant and peaceful’, so Le Pen and Wilders are just generalizing and inciting hatred. The same would be the case with a US whistleblower before WWII ‘inciting hate’ by stigmatizing german and japanese 5th column, if that whistleblower did not have CONVINSING EVIDENCE YET. I think we agree that truth must be proven to be accepted and that proof and evidence do not just grow on trees.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

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

%d bloggers like this: