Secessionist Movements

13 08 2009

David Gendron of Anarcho-pramatisme ask me in the comment section of my post on nationalism whether or not I support secessionist movements.  Originally, I was just going to reply there, but then after spend a good period of time typing out my response, I realise that I may as well give this question a full post of its own to do it justice.  I didn’t want to go rewriting War and Peace in the comments section of a post, as you could probably understand.

My thoughts on secessionist movements are complex.  Clearly, I oppose nationalism and I see no value in the concept which does nothing but act as a rallying call, around which people will gather and collectively waltz to their death for some abstract concept of ‘nation’ or ‘tribe’.  Defining oneself by an abstract concept based on the geographical region you happen to be born in is absurd.  I am cosmopolitan in my approach to the world and people; each person is to be judged on individual merit and I do not identify with one ‘team’ of people over another.  Likewise, I oppose any movement that seeks to establish or perpetuate a government as I forfeit my right to rule over others and oppose attempts by others to rule over me.

So where do I stand in regards to secessionist movements?  I do no support movements that seek to escape the presently existing government, simply because they belong to a particular group of people based on particular ethnicity or cultural heritage.  I will, on the other hand, support attempts to secede from another country which has taken control of a particular region by force.  However, my support for these movements do not rest upon a nationalist foundation but upon opposition to the validity of the state as an entity.  I do not recognise the right of any group, and by this I mean the limited number of people that are in the employ of a particular government, to claim sovereignty over a landmass and then declare its inhabitants to be their subjects by force.  I do not recognise the right to rule, and I support resistance against such rulership.

As a bad, but very general example, I would support an attempt by former Tibetans to regain control of their lands from the Chinese government because I do not recognise a government as a entity, not because they are Tibetan and the governing body is Chinese.  I support them in the sense that they are the ruled acting against the ruler who has created a hierarchy based on institutionalised power.  Their resistance is not justified because of their ethnicity, but because it opposes an institution that over the course of its most routine operations, oppresses those whom it controls.  In fact, I argue that a secessionist movement can not be justified on the basis of a dichotomy of ‘us vs them’ where them is not simply the people involved with the opposing government, but all those it has subordinated to its will.  Elevating the abstract concept of ethnic identify to a position where the individual will be considered meaningless except where it acts in accordance with the collective will is not only evil, but provides the foundation for fascism.  For me to throw my total support behind a particular movement, it needs to be motivated by an opposition to rulership and not because it is nationalist.

I will not support any secessionist movement that seeks to replace a larger government with a smaller government as they are still creating a government.  Creating a government, by definition, is to rule others; something which I fundamentally oppose.  Therefore, I reject calls that have been made by some for a ‘pan-secessionist’ movement whereby Anarchists align themselves with people from ideologies that not only permit rulership, but seek it out, for the sake utilitarian pragmatism.  Acting to cripple one oppressive state to erect hundreds other, small states is still perpetuating that evil.  Oppression will quite possibly be greater than it was under the original state.

I do accept that secessionist movements will almost always have some ethnic element in identifying who, exactly, they are seceding from.  For this reason I will praise the noteworthy aspects of a movement while condemning the evil aspects.  I may, for example, praise a secessionist movement for seeking to oppose a particular government, but I will condemn aspects which promote nationalism, particularly the ‘us vs them’ variety that inevitably concludes in racial/ethnic motivated violence and most importantly, any attempt to re-establish a state.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

21 responses

14 08 2009
David Gendron

David, not Dan. Dave is acceptable. Not much an issue.

I comment your entry. First of all, thank for your response. Second, even if i disagree with you in some aspect, your response is way more reasonable than many anarcho-colonialists in Québec (a province of Canada), where I live (and where François Tremblay was born, in case you don’t know).

“Clearly, I oppose nationalism and I see no value in the concept which does nothing but act as a rallying call, around which people will gather and collectively waltz to their death for some abstract concept of ‘nation’ or ‘tribe’. Defining oneself by an abstract concept based on the geographical region you happen to be born in is absurd. I am cosmopolitan in my approach to the world and people; each person is to be judged on individual merit and I do not identify with one ‘team’ of people over another.”

Totally agree here.

“Likewise, I oppose any movement that seeks to establish or perpetuate a government as I forfeit my right to rule over others and oppose attempts by others to rule over me.”

That ok, but I oppose also the existence of ANY government, including federal governments.

“I do no support movements that seek to escape the presently existing government, simply because they belong to a particular group of people based on particular ethnicity or cultural heritage.”

I agree with not “simply because they belong to a particular group of people based on particular ethnicity or cultural heritage” because I oppose nationalism but I oppose all governement, including ex Britain Dominions like Australia and Canada, even if Canada has two official languages, French and English.

“I will, on the other hand, support attempts to secede from another country which has taken control of a particular region by force. ”

I agree with your position here but ALL governements, including federal governments like Canada or Australia, take control of a partculiar region by force. Canada and Australia are based upon a criminal colonisation by Great Britain (and France also, in Canada).

“However, my support for these movements do not rest upon a nationalist foundation but upon opposition to the validity of the state as an entity. I do not recognise the right of any group, and by this I mean the limited number of people that are in the employ of a particular government, to claim sovereignty over a landmass and then declare its inhabitants to be their subjects by force. I do not recognise the right to rule, and I support resistance against such rulership.”

I agree again, but the same thing applies to federal governements like Canada or Australia.

“As a bad, but very general example, I would support an attempt by former Tibetans to regain control of their lands from the Chinese government because I do not recognise a government as a entity, not because they are Tibetan and the governing body is Chinese.”

That’s a good example for me. But the same thing applies to federal governements like Canada and Australia, even if the actions took by their federal governement is more “democratic” and “less violent” than the Chinese government’s actions.

“I support them in the sense that they are the ruled acting against the ruler who has created a hierarchy based on institutionalised power. Their resistance is not justified because of their ethnicity, but because it opposes an institution that over the course of its most routine operations, oppresses those whom it controls.”

Totally agree here. But again, this is applicable to the Quebec secessionnist movement in Canada.

“In fact, I argue that a secessionist movement can not be justified on the basis of a dichotomy of ‘us vs them’ where them is not simply the people involved with the opposing government, but all those it has subordinated to its will. Elevating the abstract concept of ethnic identify to a position where the individual will be considered meaningless except where it acts in accordance with the collective will is not only evil, but provides the foundation for fascism. For me to throw my total support behind a particular movement, it needs to be motivated by an opposition to rulership and not because it is nationalist.”

In theory, I agree with all. But in the statist current state of affairs, secessionnism movement will be all promoted by a statist political party also, like Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois in Québec. But the same thing applies to anti-secessionnist movements.

“I will not support any secessionist movement that seeks to replace a larger government with a smaller government as they are still creating a government. Creating a government, by definition, is to rule others; something which I fundamentally oppose. ”

Same thing: In theory, I agree with all. But in the statist current state of affairs, secessionnism movement will be all promoted by a statist political party also, like Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois in Québec. But the same thing applies to anti-secessionnist movements.

In the particular case of Québec and Canada, we’re in a federation: thus Québec governement exists right now even if. The Quebec secessionist movement

“Therefore, I reject calls that have been made by some for a ‘pan-secessionist’ movement whereby Anarchists align themselves with people from ideologies that not only permit rulership, but seek it out, for the sake utilitarian pragmatism.”

That’s where you start to use the same old fucking bullshit than so many Québec anti-secessionist anarcho-colonialists! But maybe I overstate my disagreement with your position here.

And again: in the statist current state of affairs, secessionnism movement will be all promoted by a statist political party also, like Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois in Québec. But the same thing applies to anti-secessionnist movements.

“Acting to cripple one oppressive state to erect hundreds other, small states is still perpetuating that evil. ”

But these fragile states will be way more easy to dissolve than powerful federal States and the new situation will be more favorable to decentralization. Decentralization is a basic anarchist principle.

“Oppression will quite possibly be greater than it was under the original state.”

Very rarely that’s true in the examples that I know.

“I do accept that secessionist movements will almost always have some ethnic element in identifying who, exactly, they are seceding from. For this reason I will praise the noteworthy aspects of a movement while condemning the evil aspects. I may, for example, praise a secessionist movement for seeking to oppose a particular government, but I will condemn aspects which promote nationalism, particularly the ‘us vs them’ variety that inevitably concludes in racial/ethnic motivated violence and most importantly, any attempt to re-establish a state.”

Here, you return in your more reasonable mode! Québec seccession is practically the only thing that I support in the Parti Québecois, the main secessionist political party in Québec.

Your last paragraph made me think that maybe our respective positions on this issue are more similar that I thought with the rest of your entry.

14 08 2009
David Gendron

Oops, I made a mistake!

“In the particular case of Québec and Canada, we’re in a federation: thus Québec governement exists right now even if Québec is not a country . The Québec secessionist movement will not really create a new state. In fact, both governements will be more fragile with the secession.”

14 08 2009
David Gendron
14 08 2009
David Gendron

In my blog, François Tremblay send me an interesting comment about this issue:

http://anarchopragmatisme.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/julie-couillard-ou-tentative-opportuniste-daugmenter-mon-lectorat/#comment-1012

In French: “Je suis aussi en faveur de la séparation, mais seulement parce que je supporte tout mouvement séparatiste du point de vue théorique. Des gouvernements plus locaux ressemblent plus a l’Anarchie, et ils sont probablement plus facile à dissoudre.”

In English: “I also support Quebec secession, but only because I support all separatist movements in a theoretical point of view. More local governments are more similar to Anarchy, and they’re probably more easy to dissolve than federal governements.

14 08 2009
Royce Christian

David,

First off, I can’t apologise enough for the mistake regarding your name. I have no idea how I let that slip. I hope you can forgive me for being so absent minded.

I think I need to preface what I wrote by saying, it’s what I’ve presented you with is a complicated thought process that I’ve been musing over this last week. I’ve been trying to find a consistently anti-state position on the subject of secessionism, between two poles that seem to enable statism or support nationalism. I am certainly not anti-secession, as the strategy certainly has its merits. However, I am reserved about throwing my total support behind secession as a strategy because of previous experiences with nationalists that argue for secession, or at the other extreme, Anarchists that would encourage other Anarchists to work with statists in order to make secession happen for both Anarchists and statists.

What I’ve tried to point out is that I am always going to support the anti-state attempts at secession. I think you and I agree more than you initially seemed to believe. You seem to be advocating secession as a stepping stone in a greater attempt to dismantle government. Which is fine, and may even have merit. I would be much happier throwing my support behind a secessionist movement that I understood to be specifically Anarchist, rather than one whose focal point has been a political party who will inevitably seek to control the power provided by the smaller state.

Decentralisation itself does not equate to Anarchism, even though it may be one of its features. I want to place an emphasis on the anti-rulership and anti-power aspects that define Anarchism. Nothing should be elevated above these principles, because when we elevate a secondary feature above these core principles, we step into dangerous territory (just look at Anarcho-Nationalism).

Of particular importance is the concept of pan-secessionism, that I explicitly do not support. I’m sure you already understand the concept of pan-secessionism, but I oppose this strategy based on a good understanding of Anarchist history; Anarchists cannot trust statists. Ever. Thousands of Anarchists have been murdered, imprisoned and possibly even tortured at the hands of statists who they once believed to be friends. The only person to have killed more Anarchists than Franco was Stalin, and for a long time Stalin was viewed as a strong friend of the Anarchists.

“I agree with your position here but ALL governements, including federal governments like Canada or Australia, take control of a partculiar region by force. Canada and Australia are based upon a criminal colonisation by Great Britain (and France also, in Canada).”

I want to make it clear that if Quebec were to secede from the rest of Canada, I would think this is a good thing. However, I would not support the building of a smaller government; my support would continue to be behind any Anarchist organisation opposing the creation of a second government. The difference is that the first is an opinion or preference, but the second has connotations with action. If I were able to actively support the Anarchists, I would. There is a huge difference between the two.

“In the particular case of Québec and Canada, we’re in a federation: thus Québec governement exists right now even if Québec is not a country . The Québec secessionist movement will not really create a new state. In fact, both governements will be more fragile with the secession.”

Even so, I will not support that government in any form. Even if they don’t have to form a new government, statists would seek to increase the power of the smaller, but existing government. I do not aim for smaller government in my politics; I am for no government. As I said, I would comment that Quebec’s secession from Canada is a good thing. However, I would not support anything less than an Anarchist organisation seeking no government.

Lastly, I sure as hell ain’t pro-colonialism.

15 08 2009
David Gendron

“First off, I can’t apologise enough for the mistake regarding your name. I have no idea how I let that slip. I hope you can forgive me for being so absent minded.”

No problem and no big fault! I will not forgive you because you made no fault for me! 😉

I’ll be back soon. Thank you! 🙂

15 08 2009
David Gendron

“However, I am reserved about throwing my total support behind secession as a strategy because of previous experiences with nationalists that argue for secession, or at the other extreme, Anarchists that would encourage other Anarchists to work with statists in order to make secession happen for both Anarchists and statists.”

Maybe you touch the main thing here. I will NEVER become a member of a secessionist political party to militate for secessionism! But if secession will happen, it will happen for both statists and anarchists.

“What I’ve tried to point out is that I am always going to support the anti-state attempts at secession. I think you and I agree more than you initially seemed to believe. You seem to be advocating secession as a stepping stone in a greater attempt to dismantle government. Which is fine, and may even have merit. I would be much happier throwing my support behind a secessionist movement that I understood to be specifically Anarchist, rather than one whose focal point has been a political party who will inevitably seek to control the power provided by the smaller state.”

I agree here! But, other than my blog, no such Anarchist secessionnist movement exists in Québec and no Anarchist secessionnist movement can achieve secession by himself.

“Decentralisation itself does not equate to Anarchism, even though it may be one of its features. I want to place an emphasis on the anti-rulership and anti-power aspects that define Anarchism. Nothing should be elevated above these principles, because when we elevate a secondary feature above these core principles, we step into dangerous territory (just look at Anarcho-Nationalism).”

Totally agree here!

“Of particular importance is the concept of pan-secessionism, that I explicitly do not support. I’m sure you already understand the concept of pan-secessionism, but I oppose this strategy based on a good understanding of Anarchist history; Anarchists cannot trust statists. Ever. Thousands of Anarchists have been murdered, imprisoned and possibly even tortured at the hands of statists who they once believed to be friends. The only person to have killed more Anarchists than Franco was Stalin, and for a long time Stalin was viewed as a strong friend of the Anarchists.”

I can’t trust statist secessionnists AND statist federalists but this do not invalidate secessionism and I think pan-colonialism is worse than pan-secessionism. Also, in Québec, I don’t see the statist secessionnist movement whatsoever as despotic as the Bolchevic statist communists. Not even close!

“and for a long time Stalin was viewed as a strong friend of the Anarchists.”

This illustrate the main problem with anarcho-communism: with their ideology, they play the game of leftist statists like ancaps play the game of rightist statists.

“I want to make it clear that if Quebec were to secede from the rest of Canada, I would think this is a good thing. However, I would not support the building of a smaller government; my support would continue to be behind any Anarchist organisation opposing the creation of a second government.”

Of course but the creation of a new gouvernment is impossible to stop (even if in Québec, this government exists right now) for the beginning.

“The difference is that the first is an opinion or preference, but the second has connotations with action. If I were able to actively support the Anarchists, I would. There is a huge difference between the two.”

I agree.

“Even if they don’t have to form a new government, statists would seek to increase the power of the smaller, but existing government.”

I agree but the same thing applies to federal government, in greater impact.

“I do not aim for smaller government in my politics; I am for no government.”

I agree but smaller is better than bigger.

“As I said, I would comment that Quebec’s secession from Canada is a good thing. However, I would not support anything less than an Anarchist organisation seeking no government.”

In fact, I will not support ANY organisations at all but I agree. The problem is that these organisations can’t realize the secession by themselves.

15 08 2009
David Gendron

My position on this issue: I support secession but I will not working for a secessonnist political party, except voting.

I hate the Parti Québécois, the main secessionist political party, but this party is not better nor worse than anti-secessionnist parties.

15 08 2009
Royce Christian

I think it’s certain; we agree. Mostly.

“But if secession will happen, it will happen for both statists and anarchists.”

This is true, it is inevitable. But the thing to remember is that eventually Anarchists are going to have to oppose those statists in some fashion. Working with statists to strengthen their position is taking resources from our own infrastructure and networks for the benefit of those who are going to try to rule us later.

“But, other than my blog, no such Anarchist secessionnist movement exists in Québec and no Anarchist secessionnist movement can achieve secession by himself.”

Of course. I’m the same; there is no organised counter-economic attempt in Australia, but I keep blogging and promoting it. Just because one doesn’t exist, doesn’t stop us discussing and deciding where we stand on particular issues before one rises.

“I can’t trust statist secessionnists AND statist federalists but this do not invalidate secessionism…”

Once again, we are in agreement. The fact that statists may hold a similar idea does not invalidate the idea. I just have concerns regarding pan-secessionism. The way I understand it, an Anarchist group may work towards agitating for secession because it is ‘good’, but there’s a difference between this, which only temporarily coincides with the motives of statists, and actually allying/sharing resources/actively cooperating with people who are ultimately going to wind up arresting, imprisoning or even shooting Anarchists.

“…and I think pan-colonialism is worse than pan-secessionism.”

Honestly, I have never even heard of ‘pan-colonisalism’, but if it involves Anarchists going out of their way to ally with others who support questionable ideologies, I see it equally as dangerous as pan-secessionism.

“Also, in Québec, I don’t see the statist secessionnist movement whatsoever as despotic as the Bolchevic statist communists. Not even close!”

Thing is though, you need to remember that the Anarcho-Communists thought the same about the Bolsheviks during their period. They thought they could trust them based on a mutual preference for communism; but they forgot that Bolsheviks, fundamentally, seek power. It’s what separates them from the Anarchists.

“Of course but the creation of a new gouvernment is impossible to stop (even if in Québec, this government exists right now) for the beginning.”

Absolutely. I am just trying to distinguish between motives in order to find a consistently ‘Anarchist’ position. If we are to adopt something as a tactic, there needs to be something that makes it distinguishable from what the statists are proposing.

“I agree but the same thing applies to federal government, in greater impact.”

I accept this, but I personally don’t distinguish between degrees; I look at it as ‘it impacts’. Evil is evil, it doesn’t change by degrees. So while I accept your point that the federal government has more resources and so can force itself upon more people than a smaller state/provincial government, personally, I prefer to view them both as evil. The fact that one has greater reach does not mean it is more evil. They are both founded on the same, evil premise.

But eh, what do I know? I’m, apparently, a racist Anglo-Saxon shit.

By the way, I think December should really learn about me before he makes stupid assumptions; I’m the son of immigrants with a mixed European ethnic heritage that includes people from Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean as well as all over the British Isles. I’m racial salad. He should also realise that I don’t identify as ‘Australian’ in anything other than the fact I happen to be born here and that, obviously, my views are not the same as the Australian government’s — hence the name of the blog “.urbandissent”.

18 08 2009
David Gendron

Thank you! I am shocked by the comments of Décembre. Unbelievable!

I’ll be back soon!

18 08 2009
David Gendron

You can read French a little bit?

18 08 2009
David Gendron

“But the thing to remember is that eventually Anarchists are going to have to oppose those statists in some fashion. Working with statists to strengthen their position is taking resources from our own infrastructure and networks for the benefit of those who are going to try to rule us later.”

Totally agree. In fact, I ALWAYS said to my readers that you can’t expect a better government (but nor worse!) with a nationalist party. I criticize a lot the Parti Québécois, and I will never militate as a member of this nationalist party. And when the Parti Québécois will become the government, I will criticized them a lot, because these statists tends to harm the secessionnist movement with their anti-liberty bullshit!

18 08 2009
David Gendron

“Of course. I’m the same; there is no organised counter-economic attempt in Australia, but I keep blogging and promoting it. Just because one doesn’t exist, doesn’t stop us discussing and deciding where we stand on particular issues before one rises.”

Totally agree!

“The fact that statists may hold a similar idea does not invalidate the idea. I just have concerns regarding pan-secessionism. The way I understand it, an Anarchist group may work towards agitating for secession because it is ‘good’, but there’s a difference between this, which only temporarily coincides with the motives of statists, and actually allying/sharing resources/actively cooperating with people who are ultimately going to wind up arresting, imprisoning or even shooting Anarchists.”

Totally agree again! That’s precisely that I want to do!

“Thing is though, you need to remember that the Anarcho-Communists thought the same about the Bolsheviks during their period. They thought they could trust them based on a mutual preference for communism; but they forgot that Bolsheviks, fundamentally, seek power. It’s what separates them from the Anarchists.”

But the Québec Nationalist have some “not so bad” credentials for that. The Québec nationalist movement is behind the women’s right to vote, the pro-abortion debate, the separation of State and religion, gays and lesbian rights, feminism (it’s going to far here though, with the femi-favoritist movement), drug war debate, etc.. In fact, the Canadian Nationalist movement has a way worse record in imprisoning and torturate members of political movements and destroy civil liberties.

“Honestly, I have never even heard of ‘pan-colonisalism’, but if it involves Anarchists going out of their way to ally with others who support questionable ideologies, I see it equally as dangerous as pan-secessionism.”

In some aspects, yes, but not in the main ideologies.

“I am just trying to distinguish between motives in order to find a consistently ‘Anarchist’ position. If we are to adopt something as a tactic, there needs to be something that makes it distinguishable from what the statists are proposing.”

In my case, it’s very distinguishable!

“Evil is evil, it doesn’t change by degrees. So while I accept your point that the federal government has more resources and so can force itself upon more people than a smaller state/provincial government, personally, I prefer to view them both as evil. The fact that one has greater reach does not mean it is more evil. They are both founded on the same, evil premise.”

Totally agree!

“By the way, I think December should really learn about me before he makes stupid assumptions; I’m the son of immigrants with a mixed European ethnic heritage that includes people from Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean as well as all over the British Isles. I’m racial salad. He should also realise that I don’t identify as ‘Australian’ in anything other than the fact I happen to be born here and that, obviously, my views are not the same as the Australian government’s — hence the name of the blog “.urbandissent”.”

And Congratulations for that!

18 08 2009
David Gendron

it’s going toO far here though, with the femi-favoritist movement

18 08 2009
David Gendron

Also, Québec secessionnist movement is anti-militaristic.

20 08 2009
Royce Christian

“Thank you! I am shocked by the comments of Décembre. Unbelievable!”

Eh, I’ve suffered worse from smarter people than him.

I can’t read French. I… may have cheated and used google translator.

“In fact, the Canadian Nationalist movement has a way worse record in imprisoning and torturate members of political movements and destroy civil liberties.”

But, I still believe that to take sides is wrong. Okay, one party may have a better track record — but let’s face it, all parties look good until they get their hands on power. The very fact that they openly seek power to force others to do what they want to do is the very reason we’re Anarchists.

20 08 2009
Royce Christian

Also, while you’re here, you might be interested in the post by Brad Spangler which frames the questions about Secession for Anarchism — though you’re probably already aware.

http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/1376

21 08 2009
David Gendron

“But, I still believe that to take sides is wrong. Okay, one party may have a better track record — but let’s face it, all parties look good until they get their hands on power. The very fact that they openly seek power to force others to do what they want to do is the very reason we’re Anarchists.”

I agree, both sides are evil, in essence!

Thank you for the link!

21 08 2009
David Gendron

“A big part of the obstacle for the anarchist is simply the hypocrisy of the typical statist secessionist, who says “We should be free to separate from them, but you shouldn’t be free to separate from us“. Which the anarchist, of course, recognizes as balderdash.”

Totally agree with Brad here!

“What I propose, then, is a simple standard for limited, conditional support by anarchists for secession efforts.

It seems to me that, AT A MINIMUM, conditional support for a secession effort by any political sub-division would require that political sub-division extend an explicit guarantee of the same right of secession to AT LEAST the next smaller size political sub-division that constitutes it.”

Maybe too harsh here. Canada did not himself recognize the Quebec’s right to secede. But you know what, I agree in essence with Brad here. The Quebec secession MUST come with the right of secede for smaller communities (what we call by “partition” here) and I will address this issue in my blog.

21 08 2009
David Gendron

Quebec anarchists should read more English anarchist blogs!

5 09 2009
unstranger

Excellent post, really well written and thought out too. Isn’t just like people to do all sorts of stuff?
To remain content in just babbling on about what is not accepted is worse than that which spurned it in the first place. Getting off one’s ass and changing stuff as Ghandi did should be more evident, otherwise consider perhaps finding a new focus.

Too harsh?

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




%d bloggers like this: