Why You Need Traditionalism


The American Traditionalist Society is being developed. Part of its mission is to evangelize modern people with the good news of the wisdom of the ages, so that they can tune in (to their sense that something is wrong), turn on (to the life-giving traditionalism) and drop out (of the liberal, modernist establishment.)

To this end, I offer the following essay, designed to catch the eye of potential recruits. Subsequent essays will develop the theme further.

 Why You Need Traditionalism

“Traditional” sounds old-fashioned. It sounds like the discredited—or at least unfashionable—ways of the past. That was then; this is now. Why do I need traditionalism?

“Traditional” also sounds like bondage. It sounds like people forced to do their duty, like it or not. Forced to honor kings, priests, and other non-democratically-chosen authorities. In the modern world we’re free. Why do I need traditionalism?


Because if you follow contemporary ways then you do not—and cannot—have what you need most in order to honor God and live well. Only through traditionalism can you get what you need.


So what is traditionalism? The word usually denotes a way based on a tradition, but we mean something richer and deeper. Traditionalism is a way that connects man to the true order of the world. Because man is man, and not animal, he must live within an order. And if this order deeply violates the true order of the world, as the orders of the Western nations currently do, then man cannot live well, in either his personal life or his society. In order for man to live well he needs traditionalism, for traditionalism is knowing and participating in the true order of the world.

Although the true order is God-given and therefore not changeable by man, the concrete expression of the social part of this order in the life of a people varies from group to group, from nation to nation. Each people expresses this order in its own way, and this is why although there is only one God-given order, there are many different traditions. If you are an American, then, you need American traditionalism.


Since traditionalism is thought to be a type of conservatism, our advice is diametrically opposite from contemporary thinking. Contemporary authorities say that traditionalism is to be opposed because it makes you subservient: Perhaps to a tradition you did not freely choose, or a tyrant god who doesn’t even exist, or the white people who allegedly still rule America for their benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Like every great lie, this belief contains an element of truth. Traditionalism opposes the radical freedom that is the ideal of the modern world because when man is radically free he is also lost. To live well, then, man must be under a tradition and an authority greater than himself. And traditionalism supplies this need.

To live well (like a human being rather than an animal or a demon) man needs, among other things:

  • Knowledge of the God Who is the ultimate cause of all being, truth, goodness and beauty. But contemporary thinking denies that one can know God.
  • True religion, through which man can know and have friendship with God. But contemporary thinking denies that it is even possible for a religion to be true.
  • True morality, through which man can know how to live a righteous life, and also know that he is a sinner who needs salvation through Jesus Christ. But contemporary thinking denies the reality of almost all moral truths, and it denies the principles by which any moral truth can be known with certainty.
  • Knowledge of the first principles of philosophy, through which man can understand the basic nature of the world he inhabits. But contemporary thinking denies the reality of true philosophy, claiming instead that science is the highest form of knowledge.
  • A family and nation to belong to and participate in, without which man is lost. But contemporary thinking denies that family and nation have any objective existence, or that they ought to be honored and protected.

The list could easily be extended. Anything beyond the physically tangible and the immediately obvious is denied by contemporary thinking, or at least it is said to be purely subjective. According to contemporary thinking, you can believe it if you want but it’s nothing more than your personal preference.

But observe that if it’s just your preference then it isn’t real. You could have chosen to believe or participate in the opposite of what you chose, and this opposite choice would have been equally valid. And something that could just as well have been its opposite isn’t real, for reality has definite characteristics that do not change with the whims of man.

And since, according to contemporary thinking, anything transcendent (i.e., beyond the mundane) is not real, human life is ultimately (that is, in reality) nothing but social atoms choosing arbitrarily, and we are left with the contemporary world, in which God, religion, country, morality and honor do not exist, a world in which individuals are demoralized and societies are malfunctioning. This is the horror of the modern, non-traditional world.

[True, many people believe in these transcendent elements. But according to the official narrative of Modernity, these people are fooling themselves. And the overall progress of society is always toward the actualization of this official narrative, as our leaders continually smash institutionalized intolerance and promote diversity.]


How then can you reconnect with the order you need to live well? How can you escape the nightmare of the contemporary world?

Know first that you cannot save yourself. You are too small. You need to discover, believe and participate in something larger than yourself, something that connects you with the realities that the contemporary world denies: God, true religion, family, nation, and so on. You need the traditionalism of your people.

Traditionalism is not just adherence to a tradition, for there must be a reason why we adhere to it. More basically, traditionalism is knowing and living in accord with what many thinkers call the order of being. Contemporary thought holds that the world is only a physical realm in which any meaning or order that transcends the physical is arbitrarily projected by man. And since this order is arbitrary, man can change it whenever he wants. But contemporary thought is mistaken. The world contains a God-given order that pre-exists man, and that he knows primarily through intuition, his faculty of knowing basic truths without a process of formal reasoning.

What are the elements of this order of being? It contains, among other things,

  • The physical world, with its scientific laws of matter and energy.
  • The biological world, with plants and animals (including man in his animal dimensions), with laws of life and death, birth and growth, male and female.
  • The social world, with its moral, psychological, political and economic laws, with individuals, families, clans, associations, nations, rulers and governments.
  • The spiritual world with God, angels and demons, Heaven and Hell, creation and miracles, and spiritual laws.
  • The religious world, with priests and pastors, Scripture and creeds, religious acts, and laws of sin and repentance, salvation and damnation.
  • The intellectual world, with metaphysical and epistemological principles, schools of thought, disputation and proof.
  • The esthetic world, with beauty in all its varied manifestations.

The reader will note that some of these elements appear to be man-made. Man creates social, religious and intellectual orders. Each nation creates its own unique orders. But there are proper ways to create them, within limits established by God.  Man is not free to redefine what is proper without the disastrous consequences we see all around us.

To live well you must begin to know this order and its unique expression as the traditions of your people, and you must seek to live in accord with it. You must search for those who know this order and learn from them. You must seek out like-minded persons with whom you can share your life. And most importantly, you must seek to know God through Jesus Christ, repenting of your sins and having faith in Him.  This is the life-giving traditionalism that you need.

52 thoughts on “Why You Need Traditionalism

  1. “Traditionalism opposes the radical freedom that is the ideal of the modern world because when man is radically free he is also lost.”

    The above is the salient point that distinguishes us from liberals and modern conservatives alike. I think most of us here know how frustrating it is when we argue this point. We all know what usually happens at this point – most moderns shut down and will no longer listen. To question radical freedom is to fundamentally question liberalism something that good liberals simply cannot acknowledge.

  2. Hello Alan,
    I appreciate what you have articulated here. I’ve held hopes that if only the problem were articulated clearly enough people would see it. But I’ve come to think people have to be led to entering into the inquiry for themselves and see the nature of the questions that modern science, secularism, liberalism, and the conservative responses to liberalism are founded in and are really about. This engagement is fundamentally Self inquiry with related inquiries into ideology and inquiry into modern consciousness. The centrality of science, the skepticism about there being any transcendent reality, and the stance that man’s ordinary consciousness is the highest consciousness, equates to a non-inquirying consciousness. This non-inquiry is a hallmark of modern consciousness. This consciousness is interwoven with the rejection of traditionalism; traditionalism can’t be returned to without seeing what stands in the way – which turns out to be what we’ve pledged ourselves to.

    Two inquirers into modern consciousness and the human condition that opened up for me what the spirit of inquiry is about are Pierre Manent and Aurel Kolnai. Their works, as one reviewer correctly put it, “need to be read meditatively”. They aid a person with living in and entering into the question of what, as moderns, we mean by the term ‘man’.

    Below is a response I had to James Kalb’s article at the Intercollegiatereview.com “Out of the Antiworld”. It is very cursory, but some of the main points I make about inquiry I think apply to your suggestions about turning to traditionalism. There is a need to frame the question of what is man, what is God, what spirit is, in ways that recognize the Judeo-Christian paradigm that has within it a strong separation of God and man, or a split between spirit and ordinary consciousness (but which doesn’t fully address how to overcome or dissolve this split). To recognize the assumptions implied by such a strict division, or undesolvable division between who we take ourselves to be and what we truly are, for many traditionalists and religious people will seem threatening and appear to belong to a foreign, skeptical, secular, or different religious, or new-age viewpoint, and therefore will be seen as invalid or unacceptable. But if the crisis within modern western religion and spirituality is recognized as belonging to our having thrown-off and apparently emancipated ourselves from out-worn traditions, along with our having adopted a scientific/material view, without re-asking who or what are we really, and we were to see that this failure to ask who we are involves our holding a position about who we are that has enormous problems and suffering connected to it, then we can begin to frame the picture of who we are and where we are as moderns in a ways that, as moderns, we won’t immediately and unconsciously reject. Such reframing and entering into the question of who are we really can be summed up as reviving and entering the spirit of inquiry.

    Comments made to James Kalb article:
    To my mind, a central question is… how do we talk about a higher source, or an ‘order of nature’, an authority above man, (or above ordinary mind), without using terms that evoke the Judeo-Christian view of God, a creator, separate from man? The reason we need to answer this is because many people are incapable of pondering this question if they get the slightest sense that a creator-world’ paradigm is being asserted. (They could later revisit and reconsider what Christianity has meant by the term ‘God’ once they have genuinely and experientially entered into the question of what we are and what the world is). We can recognize the term ‘man’, as in the question: “what is above man?”, is problematic because it tends to equate man with the body, or define him as such, and to do this is to fail to make a distinction between mind and what we truly are, or between ordinary mind and what is above ordinary mind. What is “higher” gets placed or conceived as outside of us and inaccessible to us, here evoking the creator-creation split that most moderns reject, or the skepticism about our ability to know the truth. The question “What is above man?”, which has hidden within it what we unknowingly believe ‘man’ to be, might be asked as ‘who am I really? or, as Pierre Manent asks: ‘What do we really mean when we use the word ‘man’ today?

    I think ‘higher intelligence, ‘true nature’, ‘nature of things’, made accessible through inquiry’ is an answer to your question of how do we proceed from here. Inquiry sounds intellectual to many, but it is really a humble receptivity, an openness of mind that recognizes what cannot be taken in quickly as mere ‘information’. Inquiry reveals what the mind is, how it is configured, as well as the beliefs about the self and the world generated by it. Who or what sees this ‘mind’, which we call our mind? is a question pointing to a fact: given mind, given nature, is being seen… by who or what? when patiently engaged with, that which knows enters into the foreground – the mystery embodied in the term ‘man’ becomes lived.

    Self inquiry, which is to question directly who or what we are, can avoid the pitfall of over-focus on a personal self, with its ignoring of the shared or common world, when it includes inquiry into ideology. This rounded inquiry, embracing of Self and common world, into what we believe is our nature of the nature of the world or reality, is the way out of the positions we hold with certainty.

    • Hello Vichara,

      I too had hoped that articulating the problem would make people see it, and I too came to see that it’s not that simple. Horse, water, drink.

      I appreciate your offering “inquiry” as a way to describe what’s needed. Inquiry may be likened to the horse drinking.

      And let’s not miss the obvious: the horse must be led to clean water. There must exist clean water, and someone must know where it is.

    • Vichara wrote: “To my mind, a central question is… how do we talk about a higher source, or an ‘order of nature’, an authority above man, (or above ordinary mind), without using terms that evoke the Judeo-Christian view of God, a creator, separate from man? The reason we need to answer this is because many people are incapable of pondering this question if they get the slightest sense that a creator-world’ paradigm is being asserted.”

      The first stage is to persuade people that there is order in the universe, and that being out of tune with that order is the cause of much misery. Historically, humanity arrived at the stage of being convinced that there is order in the universe (Zeus or Wotan supervises affairs) before it advanced to the stage of being convinced that there is an agency beyond or outside the universe that ordered the universe aboriginally, perhaps by creating it. Modern people have lapsed back below even the first of the two convictions; they are mentally like savages who live moment by moment in ecstatic or desperate improvisation, driven by contradictory notions like the vulgar “celebrity” and the vulgar “equality.”

      My underclassmen must read Homer’s Odyssey, a great Poem of Order, to borrow a term from Wallace Stevens, that declares moral cause and effect to be intrinsic to the structure of existence.

  3. And who can say that the spirit of Maccabeus is exactly what is not required?
    The moderns will be shocked into confronting reality. Curriculum development is not going to do it.

    • What do you mean by “the Progs spitting on him”? There was certainly nothing to that effect in the linked article.

      Don’t you folks have a bit of a problem if the Pope is not on your side? I thought you were supposed to submit to the authority of the Church; how does this work if the Church is not traditionalist enough for you?

      • As a Protestant, I don’t have that problem.

        The church (or the Church, if you’re Catholic), being a human institution, can be corrupted. When it is, we identify the falsehoods that it promotes and oppose them, while recognizing that it also teaches truths.

      • It’s pretty easy for Catholics to deal with. We don’t have to like the Pope, we just have to obey him in matters of solemnly defined doctrine, and show deference to the majesty of his office in all other matters. We have to follow, in other words, the example of Francis, who helped rejuvenate the Church by founding an order that was dedicated to total obedience to the very scumbag Popes they hoped their obedience would transfigure.

  4. You said radical freedom mislead public, on the other hand you radically used freedom (freedom of thought and freedom of speech) to challenge the current order. and well… when a peasant dare challenge the order and political system it’s so not traditional. 🙂

    • We’re about traditionalism, not just tradition. We speak for the order of being.

      So we oppose the Tradition of Modernism, and rightly so.

      We are free (but not radically so) to do this both because our doctrine is true, and because the Tradition of Modernism claims that man has freedom of speech.

      • I am not an authority, because nobody can simply declare themselves to be such. True authority must be conferred via a legitimate process, or else it must reside in the nature of the relationship, e.g., husband and wife; parent and child.

        I am speaking a truth that is accessible to all who have not been blinded, and I am inviting others to acknowledge this truth. It’s not true because I say so; I say so because it’s true.

  5. Pingback: The Thinking Housewife › “Why You Need Traditionalism”

  6. Several years ago I posted on my unused Facebook page a short hand definition of traditionalist conservatism, something I find is necessary when asked. This is what it means to me: “Life is participation in a permanent and immutable natural order of being that can not be altered or defied. Modern liberalism attempts to deny and to defy that order, while traditionalist conservatism accepts it and embraces its necessary constraints.”

  7. Pingback: Tactics. | - Dark Brightness

  8. “Traditionalism” suggests the ideas of Guenon, Schuon, Lings, Coomaraswamy, et al. If I’m not mistaken, they adhered to “the transcendent unity of religions.” The idea was that you should, as a rule, practice the great religion that you grew up in or that prevailed in your area. If you are a Turk, you will naturally be a Moslem; if born in a Hindu community in India, you will be a Hindu; etc. You will attain salvation by following the appropriate way. However, it was okay for you to explore the religious arts and the esoteric side of religion, where (it is held) the religions may show interesting unanimity. Hence Schuon could enjoy Islam, Native American religion, and bikinis. (See Mark Sedgwick’s book Against the Modern World, the only scholarly book on Traditionalism, so far as I know, published a few years ago by Oxford University Press.)

    This pluralism (as distinguished from relativism) may appeal to Christian conservatives for a couple of reasons. (1) It relieves the anxiety felt as regards the innumerable people who never hear the Gospel or who hear it in grossly distorted form; it says that they may be saved by living according to the light that they have, which is present in all the great religions, etc. This relieves anxiety not only about their fate but about the justice of God. (2) It unites conservative Christians with others who also oppose the stupidity, ugliness, etc. of modernity.

    My own belief is that we are not called to judge the hearts of other people — Christian, anti-Christian, Muslim, or whatever. God is the judge. However, we are to judge all doctrine by the canon of the Church’s Scriptures, the Bible. Herein a righteousness of a wholly new and unparalleled order is revealed. Other religions teach that God, or the divine order, etc. saves the righteous. The Christian revelation is that God saves sinners for Christ’s sake, in love of sinners, because Christ has taken on Himself the sins of the whole world. To those united to Christ in faith, new desires are given, so that, true enough, they begin to live righteous lives, but the essence of their righteous is hidden, because the faith that unites a person to Christ is hidden. Grace does not take over when a person has tried his hardest, as is falsely taught here and there. Grace pervades the Christian’s life from the beginning of that life through to death.

    So can we be “Traditionalists” at least in the sense of recognizing a unity of the Law in other religions, even if we cannot recognize a unity in the Gospel? I think here, to some degree, we can, but I think the unity of the Law is sometimes overstated, even by good men such as C. S. Lewis. I acknowledge that I’ve done it myself. But maybe there is at least a relative unity between the religions as regards morality — duty to elders, etc. — as compared to modernity, since modernity is so bad.

    • Modernity is like a universal acid dissolving all things, good or bad, domestic or foreign, sacred or secular. Hence the repeal of modernism is a universal prerequisite for any nation to live well.

      But to be a traditionalist in the full sense, you have to believe that your religion is true. Otherwise you have traditionalism for traditionalism’s sake, and you cannot sustain it.

      And Christianity is true. But as a traditionalist, you can recognize honor in a traditionalist of another religion, somewhat as a soldier can recognize honor in an enemy. (Not that the member of another religion is necessarily your enemy.)

      But even those peoples who believe in false religions deserve to live in societies that are ordered properly, or at least adequately. Nobody deserves to live under the disorder of modernism. Hence we can have sympathy for and even make some common cause with foreign traditionalists. Especially foreign Christian traditionalists.

      • “Nobody deserves to live under the disorder of modernism.”

        I don’t think I would go so far as to say that. But I definitely agree with you on your point about sympathizing with others who long for sanity and order in their societies yet are constantly subjected to the acidic influence of modernism in spite of their best efforts to protect themselves, their families and communities against it.

      • Hence the repeal of modernism is a universal prerequisite for any nation to live well.

        Good luck getting that toothpaste back into the tube.

        Well, there is the strategy of the Amish. But there is a reason none of you are living like the Amish — you don’t hate modernity enough to give up its comforts. And the vast majority of people feel the same way.

        Hm, that raises an entertaining thought. I doubt you folks have much in common with the hippies of the 1970s, but they too in large part rejected modernity and sought alternatives, some moving back to the land in individual or communal arrangements. For the most part this effort failed, although with some notable exceptions.

        The point is, these people were willing to put their comforts on the line in an effort to build an alternative to what they saw as a corrupt society (for reasons which at least overlap with yours). What are you going to do?

      • There is no conflict between traditionalism and high civilization. Nor for that matter is there any conflict between traditionalism and an agrarian or rural way of life.

        There is on the other hand a profound conflict between modernism and any civilized way of living, whether urban or rural, whether high, medium or low. For modernism disagrees with reality. It prevents morality. It empties life of meaning.

      • The Formless One (that’s what amorphous means, after all) exhibits many of the basic misbeliefs of modernity:

        Good luck getting that toothpaste back into the tube.

        He thinks modernity is irreversible. But no social system is irreversible. And even if it were, individuals can still tune in, turn on, and drop out.

        …you don’t hate modernity enough to give up its comforts.

        Modernity is not modern physical science and technology. Modernism is the belief that there is no authoritative and creator god, and therefore man is the Supreme Being. Traditionalism is compatible with the internet, quantum mechanics, and alternating-current electrification.

        [The hippies] were willing to put their comforts on the line in an effort to build an alternative to what they saw as a corrupt society (for reasons which at least overlap with yours). What are you going to do?

        We all put some comforts on the line, some more than others. But even if we don’t move to the country and grow our own food, we still disengage with the spiritual system of modernity. That’s the disengagement that counts most.

      • Is “a.morphous” touting the same lines about 70s hippies as our former guest “onecertain”? If so, coincidence?

      • Modernity is not modern physical science and technology. Modernism is the belief that there is no authoritative and creator god, and therefore man is the Supreme Being.

        True (well, the part about modernity not being the same as science and technology is true, but your definition of modernity leaves a lot to be desired), but they arose together and it is not clear they can be separated. Technology relies on capitalism which relies on the creative destruction of all traditional forms of social life, as Marx very accurately observed, and it also relies on an open and widespread freedom of thought, which also works against traditional authoritarian arrangements.

    • A Confucian could make a very similar case for traditionalism, and Wurmbrand sees that. One could argue that any tradition that has survived or even flourished for centuries or millennia with large numbers of adherents must have something that successfully sustains it. Stephen Prothero has argued persuasively that the world’s great religions are not one, but there does exist on some points a consensus gentium and a recognition of virtues in different traditions.

      Alan Roebuck wants to make the case for American Traditionalism. Specifically, he wants Christian American Traditionalism. But Americans never had just one single tradition, and Americans never had just one single religion.

      In the Nineteenth Century America did have a Protestant hegemony. Catholics would presumably not prefer a return to that hegemony. Catholics see themselves as heirs to a single unbroken tradition and see the Reformation as a break with that tradition, while Protestants see the Reformation as a return to the original tradition. Then there are American Jews who see Christianity as a break from the original religious tradition. By the middle of the Twentieth Century, there was a Catholic-Protestant-Jewish cultural consensus in America, but that is gone now.

      Nineteenth and Twentieth Century America also believed in and celebrated progress. This is not a popular theme in the Orthosphere.

      So Alan could argue that what we really need is truth and the true tradition, in other words, an American Truth Society. But who would believe in an organization called The American Truth Society?

      • This is a good comment and it brings up a point that many American traditionalists seem to not examine. A good argument could be made that America’s tradition as a liberal one. This has not to say that Americans have always been liberal, indeed the social orders that subsisted here prior to the revolution were in many ways deeply traditional. But the revolution set up a secular form of government that at best had little use for any Christian order. Even in the 19th century when America was still religiously, ethnically and culturally homogeneous the Protestant sects could not pass an Link amendment recognizing Jesus Christ.

        We can not be given to nostalgia. That is not to say that we discard every aspect of American history but it may require a return to ideas and principals that pre-dated 1776 in America.

      • Indeed America has a long tradition of liberalism. But traditionalism is not just tradition. It is respect for the order of being, which sometimes requires one to oppose the currently dominant tradition.

      • Leo argues that traditionalism is not a real live possibility. But traditionalism is not just tradition. It is knowledge of and respect for the order of being, as it is instantiated in the traditions of our people. American traditionalists can do this in several way; there is not one American Tradition, nor need there be. It is not as difficult as Leo makes it out to be.

        About truth: Man is not nourished by the general concept of truth, he is nourished by specific truths. But they do him no good unless he believes them to be true, and not just a tradition.

        America historically always considered itself to be a Christian nation, even as she contained Catholics and the various Protestant sects, along with the various non-Christian minorities. And as Christians, we of the Orthosphere support Christian traditionalism.

      • But Americans never had just one single tradition, and Americans never had just one single religion.

        Yet somehow, John Jay, writing in Federalist No. 2, was able to say “… that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…”

        Perhaps we have never had true unity, but we were once a much more united, and similar, people than we are now. Part of fixing our current problems is understanding where we went wrong, and seeking to rectify those mistakes.

      • I agree that America was once much more united than it is now. At the very least, there was once a commonly held ideal that America was something like a unified tradition.

  9. Pingback: Manifesto for Traditionalists? | Ita Scripta Est

  10. “… you don’t hate modernity enough to give up its comforts.”

    Modern-ism and modern comforts like, say, electric lighting, air-conditioning, running water, internal combustion engines and so forth, do not equate to the same things. Sure, I could give up electric lighting and air-conditioning, build an outhouse on my property and carry water 1/4 mile in home-made buckets, but how exactly is any of that a rejection of modernism?

    • It goes back to a comment that Proph made on my blog: Progressives don’t have principles, just a laundry list of anti-principles. So, being oblivious to natural virtues like Moderation means that you are a hypocrite if you do anything in between plugging into the grid entirely and living in a cave.

  11. There’s something that I’ve wondered about for many years now: Every society that has ever existed, with the exception of the modern West, has been essentially a traditional society. Is there something peculiar and/or unique about the West , in particular, that can account for it being the incubating ground of the modernist heresy? Does the rise of modern science and classical liberalism represent a departure from the civilization of Christendom or does it represent a fulfillment of it?

    • Departure. The rise of science is not the issue; the problem is scientism, the treatment of science as the alpha and omega of all knowledge and the fetishization of science as a quasi-religious institution.

      The modernist heresy, like all heresy, is the work of the devil. All perversions and distortions are departures from God’s order, so our current situation, while possibly part of the prophesy in Revelation, is not the fulfillment of Christianity.

  12. Pingback: How To Argue Against Radical Freedom? | The Orthosphere

  13. Pingback: Advice to the Single Young Man | The Orthosphere

  14. Pingback: Orthosphere. Dr. Kristor; Scoot. orthosphere.wordpress.com Freedom for Some: Damnation or Universal Salvation – Choose but One. – Saint Andrew of Valaam Association.


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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.