Disutilitarianism: the Incorrigible Conflict Among Incompatible Utility Functions

Take a group of people and plop them down together in any given set of material circumstances. Given the resources and stressors present in those circumstances – not, i.e., introduced by the people themselves – each of them will develop a different schedule of preferences about what should happen next, so as to maximize each his own net hedonic utility. Only when the constraints of the circumstances on what is practically possible are extremely tight – only, that is, when there are only very few options that are tolerable for any of them (as when, e.g., the flood waters are approaching) – will the utility functions of the whole group approximate to unanimity.

Only rarely, then, will all the members of a group completely agree about what should best be done. Almost always, they shall find that they must negotiate with each other in order to reach a joint decision about the fitting uses of the resources at hand. The greater the number of options furnished by their material circumstances, the more likely are they to disagree with each other incompatibly.

When this happens, the question between them is which of them will have to suffer some disappointments or other in order for the group as a whole to achieve an acceptable mix of disappointment and satisfaction – of, that is to say, costs and benefits. It is here that market and gift exchanges begin – and with them negotiations, crimes, laws, politics, and so forth – the whole panoply of common life. Because resolution cannot happen except in virtue of some degree of disappointment, it cannot but produce resentment, which of course threatens always to end in violence.

The problem of society as such, then, is to find ways of increasing the likely degree of compatibility among utility functions, so as to salve resentment, reduce intramural violence and improve coordination.

A cult clusters utility functions tightly together in the solution space, so that there is a much better chance that the group will approximate to unanimity, or at least to agreement on a set of compatible options, thus minimizing conflict. In effect, a cult promulgates notions of what sorts of things are important, or not, and how therefore it is proper to behave.

Whether or not founded in the common cult, customs and taboos too greatly constrain the number of options open to the group. This sort of constraint works on all social rituals, from table manners and rules of polite speech (spelling, grammar and diction) to dressing and grooming.

Likewise will utility functions more likely converge the more the group members are phenotypically similar. Nor is this only a function of similar tastes developed by similar upbringing, although that must certainly play a role. It must also be genetic, for studies of twins separated at birth manifest their truly spooky unplanned agreements about even the most picayune preferences – e.g., for white dogs named Spot.

Finally, authoritative leadership too constrains the options the people feel are truly open to them. Kings give law, defining what is and is not right to do. But then also do they transmit the Law handed down by their fathers: the king is the embodiment of all his ancestral line, and all that it has learned over the centuries about the right way to behave in this or that situation. The scribes of the sovereign in their archives and the clerks of the law courts and secretaries of the parliaments in theirs remember, echo, and refresh the bonds that in past times bound things together.

Whatever else they intend, the organs of society are all aimed at reducing incompatibility of utility functions so as to improve the likelihood of their harmonic coordination. And there is feedback and coevolution among such institutions. E.g., as the taboos on discourse evolve, so might customary political procedures. Contrariwise, as the exigencies of politics or of war push the matter of political discourse into new and uncharted territory (think, e.g., of the challenge to customary American politics of the European invasions), the cult can change in response (as, e.g., with the Ghost Dance).

Again, cultures are selection routines that operate on genotypes: they prefer and reward those sorts of men who are best suited to thrive in them, who then thrive best when they replicate the culture that forms the milieu of their success. Utility is in part a function of physiology, which is to say, of phenotype; as cultures constrain utility functions, then, so likewise they constrain genotypes. Broadly speaking, it therefore makes some sense to treat a culture’s phenotype, not just as one of its characteristic expressions, but also as one of its constitutive institutions.

When any of the primary social institutions fails or falters, social cohesion can be maintained only by an increase in the constraining activity of the others. If, e.g., the common patrimonial cult be vitiated, the sovereign must increase his own sorts of constraining activities in order to keep things going in orderly fashion: so will there be more laws, more police, more bureaucrats – more costs and penalties. A heterogeneous gene pool likewise will need a strong religion or state to keep chthonically disparate utility functions coordinated.

In the modern era, the common cult has fallen into desuetude, as have most rules of decorum. The gene pool of the Western lands is less and less homogeneous. So now are we constrained only by the state and by taboo – by diktat and political correctness – and that, poorly. So poorly, indeed, that the media – another constraining social institution – must propagate falsehood in order to keep some semblance of harmony. Things spiral more and more out of truly harmonious coordination, and chaos increases. Everyone feels this in their guts. So the nisus toward enforcing political correctness grows ever more frenzied and picayune, its ritual immolations of scapegoats less and less effectual at purging the demons we all feel nagging at our minds. So the state regulation of petty private affairs grows ever more desperate and totalitarian, reaching down even to thoughtcrime. The system as a whole is grasping at every conceivable straw in a frantic effort to hold things together amicably.

Take on the other hand the reverse situation, where a homogeneous people adhere all to a strong common cult. Then, things hang together with but minimal activity on the part of the sovereign, and taboos are few.

It is hard to say for sure, but it looks therefore as though phylogenetic homogeneity and a common cult are more fundamental than taboo or politics, and subvene them. Mix diverse peoples together, destroy the patrimonial cult, and no matter how hard the sovereign works or taboos proliferate, things will fall apart, and into war. This sort of conflict of the characteristic visions of disparate peoples living in the same territory cannot be corrected, except by removals of peoples and their visions, leaving as a remainder in each territory only the most robust of the lot: a homogeneous people espousing a common cult.

39 thoughts on “Disutilitarianism: the Incorrigible Conflict Among Incompatible Utility Functions

  1. Pingback: Disutilitarianism: the Incorrigible Conflict Among Incompatible Utility Functions | Neoreactive

  2. Kristor, you remain, as always, more optimistic than I could ever be. Yeats speaks more clearly to me every year I live —

    THE SECOND COMING

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

  3. Your last paragraph, Kristor, is a well-nigh perfect capsule summary of what is in store for the late, great USA. It is inevitable that we and our descendants must find our way back to being “a homogeneous people espousing a common cult”–and for you and me, that “homogeneous people” is necessarily white. Since Christianity is the historic religion of our people, it is both plausible and desirable that Christianity will be our “common cult”. As the return to a localized white racial homogeneity and Christian cultic unity will, as you maintain, involve war–enmity on the part of our people toward nonwhites and non-Christians will be heightened. Therefore blacks, Hispanics, Jews, homosexuals, etc. will have no place in the new order of our “homogeneous people espousing a common cult” and we will attain this new order largely through engaging in violent conflict with the aforementioned categories. Given that this is our certain future, shouldn’t we “sell out” to it in the here and now–by withdrawing our solicitude for nonwhites and non-Christians, and steeling ourselves for the difficult task of re-appropriating our racial and religious being?

    • I grow less sanguine with each passing day, but I am not so much of a historical determinist as to think war inevitable. Nor do I think it the only way out of our predicament, or therefore a good one. Nor for that matter do I think that immaculate homogeneity is a sine qua non of social harmony; I doubt it is achievable in the real world, anyway.

      But what is achievable, and what does suffice for prevalent social harmony, is a predominant cult and a predominant phenotype and a predominant culture, to which others in the near vicinity give pride of place – so that, e.g., there is such a thing as Rome, full of Romans, who generally do things in the Roman way, which others in their lands ought properly to respect, and indeed follow. And people do naturally sort themselves in just this way: Romans want to live with Romans.

      I think the likeliest outcome over the next decades is just such a natural, gradual sortition, followed by secession. No one wants war; it is a lousy way to settle differences. We are nowhere now in a position to win one. We should therefore avoid it as we can, instead seeking to encourage the sortition that will happen one way or another anyway, and defending ourselves when attacked. Certainly we should not seek out conflict or provoke it. We should rather forthrightly declare that there is a better way to live, and follow that way. As the Christians were yeast in the Roman Empire, so should we be in ours. Modernism is logically incoherent, and so cannot work. It will run out of money, and control. It will break down all by itself. A turning will come. We need only to survive and prosper until it does, at which point we shall be in good standing to inherit.

  4. “Take a group of people”

    Which group of people? a family, neighbors, countrymen, strangers??
    It is wonderful that while you decry Locke and Hobbes but your actual scenarios may be taken from them.

    “as to maximize each his own net hedonic utility.”
    So you believe that individuals are hedonic utility maximizers, in accordance with some universal notion of hedonic utility. Don;’t you think individuals seek to realize their personal visions of the Good?

    “Almost always, they shall find that they must negotiate with each other in order to reach a joint decision about the fitting uses of the resources at hand. ”
    You must not be reading news. People fleeing on boats from Libyan coasts show a general tendency to throw non-members of their group out of the boat.

    “market and gift exchanges begin – and with them negotiations, crimes, laws, politics, and so forth”
    So market exchanges are prior to society and laws?

    Rest is just weird
    “cultures are selection routines that operate on genotype”
    “A cult clusters utility functions tightly together in the solution space, ”

    Is this reactionary discourse Maistre is going to recognize?
    Was the Yahweh cult born out of “utility functions in solution space”? Was Zeus cult? Name a single cult that has anything to do with utility functions in any space whatsoever.

  5. And how and where did “phylogenetic homogeneity” come into play? You started with an unspecified “group of people plopped down together”. With what magic did this ” “phylogenetic homogeneity” emerge?

    This weird mishmash of libertarianism (market prior to society), romantic monarchism, pesudo-scientific jargon always gets you the predetermined conclusion that Genes rule supreme. That is family and rest are aliens.
    Your conclusion
    “a homogeneous people adhere all to a strong common cult. Then, things hang together with but minimal activity on the part of the sovereign, and taboos are few.”

    IS there any evidence that the Hebrews had fewer taboos than modern Americans?
    It escapes you that a common cult CREATES homegenous people. A common cult is all that is requried. Genetic homogeneity is irrelevant.

    • “Genetic homogeneity is irrelevant.”

      Huh? Are you completely blind or what? If what you say is true, how do you explain why, in a diverse society like our own, people with the same or similar genetic makeups cluster together into their various groups? E.g., Jews, Arabs, Hispanics, Native Americans, Europeans, blacks etc.

      It escapes him because it is simply untrue that “a common cult is all that is required.” Nonsense.

    • Take a group of people …

      Which group of people? a family, neighbors, countrymen, strangers??

      Any group of people.

      It is wonderful that [you] decry Locke and Hobbes but your actual scenarios may be taken from them.

      When have I decried Locke and Hobbes?

      That they were wrong about some things does not entail that they were wrong about everything. Utilitarianism is not wrong through and through, but rather just inadequate all by itself to reality. The same could be said for, e.g., neo-Darwinism or game theory, or indeed any theory. No finite set of propositions can be perfectly adequate to reality. Only reality is perfectly adequate to reality.

      But – this is very important – inadequacy is not tantamount to falsity.

      So you believe that individuals are hedonic utility maximizers, in accordance with some universal notion of hedonic utility. Don’t you think individuals seek to realize their personal visions of the Good?

      Yes.

      Almost always, they shall find that they must negotiate with each other in order to reach a joint decision about the fitting uses of the resources at hand.

      You must not be reading [the] news. People fleeing on boats from Libyan coasts show a general tendency to throw non-members of their group out of the boat.

      You make my argument. As the post makes clear, violence is a typical result of any conflict of incompatible utility functions that is not quite successfully reconciled through some sort of negotiated settlement. It might even be said that violence *just is* unreconciled conflict of incompatible utility functions.

      So market exchanges are prior to society and laws?

      Did I say that? No. I did not.

      Is this reactionary discourse Maistre is going to recognize?

      Perhaps not, at first. How would that signify, one way or another? Would it trouble him that even analyses that begin with considerations of utility reach reactionary conclusions? I doubt it. I think he’d get a kick out of it. Honest, careful analysis must proceed from any basis, no matter how errant in itself, toward Truth. This fact is refreshing, and encouraging, especially to a tradent.

      Was the Yahweh cult born out of “utility functions in solution space”? Was [the] Zeus cult? Name a single cult that has anything to do with utility functions in any space whatsoever.

      Did I say that cults are borne out of utility functions in solution space? No. I did not.

      And how and where did “phylogenetic homogeneity” come into play? You started with an unspecified “group of people plopped down together.” With what magic did this “phylogenetic homogeneity” emerge?

      With that same magic by which anything emerges, I suppose. The post did not address that sort of question – it was not about the origins of things, but their interactions.

      This weird mishmash … gets you the predetermined conclusion that genes rule supreme.

      Did I say that genes rule supreme? No. I did not.

      … a homogeneous people adhere all to a strong common cult. Then, things hang together with but minimal activity on the part of the sovereign, and taboos are few.

      Is there any evidence that the Hebrews had fewer taboos than modern Americans?

      The Hebrews did indeed have lots of taboos. But then, they needed them. They had not a strong common cult in their own lands. They lived mixed in among pagan Canaanites, a tiny island amid a sea of pagan cults – Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, Minoan – to which they were constantly tempted, and their adherence to their own cult was weak and dilatory. One of the major themes of the Old Testament is the faithlessness of the Israelites. Their sovereignty too was always weak and insecure, as a brief review of their fractious, tumultuous political history makes plain. They never had border security – or borders at all – for more than a few decades at a time. These conditions have perdured for the Jews even to the present day, when in Israel they are still living in the midst of millions of adversary adherents of an antithetical cult, and throughout the diaspora are strongly tempted by atheism and Christianity. So it is that they have for millennia relied strongly upon taboo and upon ethny – i.e., genetic homogeneity.

      It escapes you that a common cult CREATES homogeneous people. A common cult is all that is required. Genetic homogeneity is irrelevant.

      Not only does it not escape me that a common cult creates a homogeneous people, I say so in the post – in the paragraph about the coevolution of genes and culture.

      Really, Vishmehr, it grows tiresome to say to you, again and again, that you should read more carefully before exploding in expostulations, so that fewer of them wind up being simply inapposite.

  6. Pingback: Disutilitarianism: the Incorrigible Conflict Among Incompatible Utility Functions | Reaction Times

  7. This is interesting because almost no one would accuse America of being homogeneous nor consisting of one common cult, yet, she only has one universally understood taboo. And of course, this is the taboo against white Supremacy and the white Supremacist. What is rather intriguing though is the actual function of this taboo now that “white supremacy” and the “white supremacist” are effectively nonexistent as even a minuscule force. The function of this taboo is now the mechanism of justification for “greater” liberal to squash lesser liberal via the slander that keeps on giving. The lastest example of this self-annihilation will be Dylann Roof. A deracinated son, with 500 years of lies thrown in his face all at once, snapped and now will be put to death by the anti-death penalty crowd righteously rationalized by Roof’s “white supremacy.” It’s diabolical.

  8. This is among your strongest articles. It is a perfect companion piece to any discussion of societal entropy because it explains why it occurs at the meta level. Genius!

    “So now are we constrained only by the state and by taboo – by diktat and political correctness – and that, poorly.”

    Indeed, one of the key function problems being the lack of static code. The rule book is, as you say, constantly in flux, constantly having to not only expand to protect more oppressed classes, but also building in caveats as the population becomes more freakish (i.e – Blackface is racist… except when Rachel Dolezol does it).

    I think Codreanu touched on this when he said regarding democracy in Romania, and its exacerbating effect on the growing Jewish tensions…

    “Democracy breaks the unity of the Romanian people, dividing it into parties, stirring it up, and so, disunited, exposing it to face the united block of Judaic power in a difficult moment of its history. This argument alone is so grave for our existence that it would constitute sufficient reason for us to change this democracy for anything that could guarantee our unity: namely our life; for our disunity means death.”

    Democracy itself is acidic upon the ‘common cult’ that binds the people (and it should be noted this term is not used in the exclusively theological sense). As soon as people have the option of potential political outcomes, potential political leaders, potential upper classes, there opens the yawning chasms of disunity. The people divide first along these faultlines, and then subsequently across a million different cracks that follow forth from the tremor. Democracy is an earthshake to the spiritual heart of the nation. Minority groups in any country will promote democracy for as long as it serves their ends, for it completely gelds the host nation. It immediately sets to work destroying everything that actually separates a nation from simply ‘people running about’.

    • Democracy is only acidic amongst a population with radically different conceptions of right and wrong. In a white Supremacist society, democracy would be as routine and unencumbering as voting whether to have Julie and her three daughters bake a dozen apple pies versus a dozen blueberry pies or just six of each for the city’s Fourth of July community picnic.

      • Amongst a people who hold in unity perfectly compatible conceptions of right and wrong, what is the use of Democracy?

      • Thordaddy is insightful here. Democracy and elections are only meant to decide relatively trivial questions and presuppose a great deal of social consensus.

      • This is a fair point that democracy, given the correct conditions, can work without negative impact if it decides small issues, ‘hyper-regional’ issues if you will. However, it cannot go any higher, and certainly cannot decide the nation’s leaders. It has no more sense to designate a king than it does to alter religious doctrine. Voting should be kept to pie flavors, where it belongs.

      • “However, it cannot go any higher, and certainly cannot decide the nation’s leaders.”

        Etch that in stone somewhere and I’m with y’all.

        Oh, and just so’s no one gets the wrong impression about this democratic arrangement for choosing pie flavors and such at the local level, voting is still restricted to net tax payer, property owning, married Christian men twenty-five years old and older.

      • Mark Citadel…

        A group of sound white men could most certainly vote a national leader with the tacit understanding that this vote was not a lesser of two evils, but a better of two greats. “We” are at total breakdown… A radically autonomous state. The “nations” that spring forth from this ideological-driven separation will bear fruit where that separation is, in fact, the inevitable consequence of that group of white men who strive towards Supremacy. To strive towards Supremacy is to obtain exactly the separation “we” seek versus the forced and coerced separation of radical autonomy WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN IMPRESSED upon “us.”

      • Democracy did not create the degenerate. But a critical mass of degenerates will inevitably crave democracy.

      • The two feed off of each other. It’s a sort of chicken vs. egg question. With a general trend towards societal disintegration and ruin, there will be two big movements. One away from rigid hierarchy and towards demotism (or more commonly a rigid upside down hierarchy wearing the regalia of democracy), and also a move away from men and women of pure virility to monstrous shadows of human beings.

        Which comes first chronologically? It seems to me that a people would have had to degenerate to actually be tricked into democracy through whatever crafty means. It is entirely AGAINST man’s instincts, the same as egalitarianism and equality. Man KNOWS that people in general will not pick good leaders. So yes, degeneration comes first. But democracy is one of the very tangible and traceable causes of political decline, for now the elite of a nation is chosen by ballot.

      • Well said, Mark. I for one could never again lend my support to the “one man, one vote” theory of government, not even for the most trivial of trivial matters, for invariably and over the course of time and things, degeneracy would occur and democracy grow in proportion thereto. Hence, carve it in stone as I said.

        Fortunately for some of us the steel of our better instincts wasn’t so softened and blunted by the demonic deception that is liberalism so as to render us incapable of seeing the destructiveness inherent to its favored form of government, and to ultimately turn and reject it. This we owe to Men who stood athwart progressivism’s undying devotion to the cause of destroying our manhood during our formative years.

        I’m reminded of the time my mother came to visit and we all picnicked at a popular state park near our house. The children asked whether they could play at a waterfall about a hundred yards from the pavilion we had occupied for the day. I gave them the ok. Sometime within the next hour a car full of derelicts came into area where we were, the older children noticing their presence, they immediately gathered the little ones up and made haste back to the safety of their father’s protection under the pavilion. My mother being impressed by the sight of this remarked “Wow! there’s no way your kids could ever be abducted by a stranger!” I replied, “that’s because we don’t buy into the lies of liberalism, thus we make a conscious effort to not beat their better instincts out of them. Danger lurks. Be aware of it. Always!”

      • Mr. Citadel…

        It seems you are really speaking of democracy + “universal franchise.” It is really this latter meme, a logical outcome of total equality, that can then turn democracy into a truly ugly thing.

      • Thordaddy, the *idea* for a thing always precedes its actuality. Thus, nip it in the bud, or prohibit it altogether.

      • Mr. Morris…

        I can’t help but beiieve that voting on the trivial matters at the local level is exactly what “we” seek to be able to do as a sign of healthy community. Small (d)emocracy has its place and its limits somewhere amongst the cult.

    • Mark, normally minorities are not in favour of democracy because normally majorities vote against them. I say normally for I think the US is somewhat special because of the system of two parties and tradition of inviting foreigners. The process of forming a nation in America was disturbed from beginning by your political system that unfortunately seems to be part of your national identity.

      That’s not to say I advocate for democracy. There are other problems with it: lack of responsibility of the voters, lack of efficiency (in voting as process of decision-making) and tendency to secularism. Also in reaction to previous comments I would add that voting rarely stops with trivial decisions.

      • Long term, democracy at the large-scale level cleaves a nation apart and dissolves it, so minorities will support it with the caveat that there are some protections for them until then, and there almost always are because there are rarely true democracies where majorities may decide anything (mobocracies). Almost in all cases, democracy comes in the form of party representation. When it comes to the treatment of a minority which hates the host state, one party will be more vitriolic, the other more permissive. There will be never again the kind of united opposition to the machinations of a hostile minority. History shows this trend (with the exception of systems where the minorities somehow gained undue political power, as in Syria), minorities support the democratization of a country largely because it opens up for political criticism things that were considered unquestionable previously. The minority, if it is a religious minority, can launch an attack on the established religion in ways simply not possible under a monarchy.

        Democracy divides a people as it grants them access to politics. If a minority group does not begin with access to democracy, they can be sure that eventually they will get it. And once they have, either through the rapidity of their reproduction, or their infernal influence on critical sectors like banking, they will work to destroy the nation from within.

        Also, we must be aware of the moderation enforced by parties on the right, and the reverse on the left. Rightist politicians will always be less extreme than the people who elect them, while Leftist politicians will always be more extreme than the people who elect them. This is another mover of the Overton window. I think in the long-standing tradition of Reaction, the correct Rightist position is to reject democracy at all but the most trivial of local levels where it is to be contained ruthlessly.

      • That makes sense, Mark. I wrote my comment with specific counter-example in mind but you describe a general rule.

        Still, why blame minorities? Their case is just a tool in higher political game. Liberals care less about minorities and more about their principles.

        And, if you have Jews in mind they were able to gain status and influence in monarchies, too. Nonetheless, Jews are a rather specific case.

      • It isn’t so much a designation of blame as a description of human reality.I would expect all races to do this when put into a minority situation. It’s a good reason why ethnostates are the ideal, or a very well ordered imperium.

      • I agree that ethnicity is a strong root of potential problems. Ethnostates are natural but stressing this point too much means repeating the error of nationalism. There are other unifying elements as ties to ruling dynasty and nobility if these things will be reborn once again. And, of course, religion. This would be what you call well ordered imperium.

    • Thordaddy, just saw your last reply to me. Sorry.

      No, you’re right of course; there’s something to be said for the health of a local community that can successfully and democratically choose for itself between apple and blueberry pie made by Sarah and her three sisters at the town festival. Also, we wouldn’t want to overburden the higher authorities with trivial matters like that, we’re all very much aware of how that works out, I’m sure. You’ll have to pardon my reticence on this issue I suppose; it’s just that I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the last time we voted for blueberry over apple pie … or was it the other way around? Well, no matter; someone slipped in a new recipe right at the last moment before any of us understood what had happened and could change our vote, and the whole town was sick for a week afterward. 🙂

  9. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/08/09) | The Reactivity Place

  10. Pingback: Disutilitarianism: a Post Scriptum | The Orthosphere

  11. Hi Kristor

    You use very abstract language here, and I find it a bit hard to follow, but I think get the general gist and perhaps can reword the same thing a bit simpler:

    When utilitarianism was invented, it looked like similar things cause pleasure and pain, or help or harm to people. It looked fairly obvious – it seemed everybody wants material riches and nobody wants to get tortured, for example. JS Mill realized that people have actually wildly different positive utilities, pleasures, that is far more subjective, and thus the focus should be merely preventing harm or negative utility, because that is far more uniform. Today we know it is not the case. The whole SJW phenonenon is people claiming all kinds of strange subjective pains and harms. We could dismiss that as ridiculous, but a utilitarianism where I get to decide whether the reported pain of someone else is valid or not utilitarianism, it is a form of dictatorship. Thus, it boils down to utility being entirely subjective, which boils down to it being impossible to make everybody’s utility compatible.

    • That’s the gist of it, although I take off from there into a discussion of the social institutions that operate to harmonize different preference schedules by ruling out lots of options.

  12. Pingback: RE: Microaggressions and isolation | Dividuals

  13. Pingback: Reactionary Roundup – waka waka waka

Comment

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