The Wages of Moral Nominalism is Rage

It’s amazing how quickly liberals – and especially Social Justice Warriors – descend into rage, into foaming at the mouth, screaming, insults, violence – whenever they suffer the least jot of cognitive dissonance at the hands of a based Reactionary interlocutor. How come?

Well, when the First Principle of your moral system is that there is no objective moral reality – that there is no moral system to begin with – any hint of a suggestion that there is in fact a moral reality is going to seem to you utterly arbitrary, illegitimate, selfish, tyrannical and … unjust. It is going to seem delusional, and so – being mad, ergo immune to reasoning – extremely dangerous. Quite naturally, then, you will react to any such suggestion with outrage. For, any such suggestion will constitute a radical, mortal challenge to your entire moral calculus, your whole schedule of preferences and desires. Such a suggestion cannot but be interpreted as an implicit attack upon your own personal existence – as a bid to name you the scapegoat, fit only for ejection beyond the pale, banishment, bewilderment, solitude, death. And because any such suggestion must (under the terms of your moral understanding) be taken as entirely unjustified by any possible appeal to reality, it cannot but seem deeply wrong.

This, despite your professed avowals that there is no such thing either as absolute right or absolute wrong.

When there is no inarguably given moral order to reality, there can be no such thing as a moral safe haven. Because there is no moral reality so far as he can see, so there can for the moral nominalist be no way to talk rationally and dispassionately about moral questions. He has no way of controverting any challenges to his righteousness, and so to his fitness to continue a member of the polis. The only options open to a moral nominalist under challenge, then, are fight, or flight.

39 thoughts on “The Wages of Moral Nominalism is Rage

  1. Pingback: The Wages of Moral Nominalism is Rage | @the_arv

  2. That’s a highly interesting insight, Kristor. It makes sense, providing some kind of logic to the madness of the outrage.

  3. Pingback: The Wages of Moral Nominalism is Rage | Reaction Times

  4. I am amazed at how frequently I encounter just the rage you describe. It is irrational, deeply personal, and based on fear. It’s never been harder to have a rational discussion of morality with liberals. The knee-jerk media has successfully hammered in the implicitly believed equivalence: traditional morality=rape/oppression/genocide.

  5. Liberalism is commitment to political liberty, which begets the equal rights imperative, which implies the fraternity
    of the free and equal new man. Naturally if you call the free and equal new man (as conceived by particular kinds of liberals) into question you are less than human scum. All of the fully human are by definition equally free, so if you (willfully or accidentally) call equality into question you are – by definition – subhuman.

    https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2015/12/05/youd-better-hope-it-comes-up-heads/

    These political commitments weaponize the principle of explosion: nominalism is one of the metaphysically anti-realist weapons which liberalism forges from its basic commitment to its particular untruth: that is, from its commitment to political liberty, to non-authoritative authority, to non-discriminatory discrimination.

    Of course anyone who calls into question a particular liberal’s conception of “authentic” liberty is – is by definition – a subhuman instrument of oppression.

      • Kristor:

        Political liberty presupposes moral nominalism.

        Right liberals will object though and say that there is a difference between the existence of moral absolutes and the putative authority of particular men to enforce them.

        A liberal doesn’t have to disbelieve in moral absolutes in order to hate authoritarians (people who believe in the deontological reality of authority). He just has to see ‘our’ attempts to assert our possession of those truths, and more importantly the authority to enforce them, as tyrannical: that it, a violation of political liberty.

        “Our” side always makes the mistake of thinking that liberals don’t believe in moral absolutes, don’t believe in God, etc. It is an easy mistake to make, because liberals speak and behave as if they disbelieve in moral absolutes, God, etc. Again, (it always seems to be my role to point this out) this provides a metaphysical motte-space in which ‘conservative’ liberalism can survive metaphysically realist criticism, biding its time, ready to metastasize into the next iteration of radical liberalism, to clean up liberalism’s worst excesses in order to insure its long term survival.

        But liberalism is anti-realism about the authority of men in particular. This does presuppose or depend upon anti-realist assertions / defense mechanisms like nominalism. But it is a cafeteria nominalism applied to politics (authority) in particular. (All anti-realisms in politics are cafeteria anti-realisms, because nobody can assert discriminating authority while consistently denying its reality).

      • “Our” side always makes the mistake of thinking that liberals don’t believe in moral absolutes, don’t believe in God, etc. It is an easy mistake to make, because liberals speak and behave as if they disbelieve in moral absolutes, God, etc.

        Is it a mistake, though? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it not a duck? Fervent Muslims speak and behave as if they were at war with us. Are they not at war with us?

        I grant of course that lots of liberals left and right believe that they believe in moral absolutes. But the proof is in the pudding. If you truly believe in moral realism, you can’t honestly act as though you don’t. And one of the ways to behave as a moral nominalist is to construe political authority (of some particular men or other) as illegitimate eo ipso – is, i.e., to construe political liberty as a First Thing of any just social order, and any authoritarian trammels upon it whatsoever as inherently unjust.

        Not that liberals ever think this through, though. Of course. Hard to think through an incoherent moral perspective; and scary; unsafe; triggering. So let me do it for them.

        An absolute moral law that was inaccessible to the human intellect for one reason or another could not reasonably – which is to say, could not possibly – pertain to human life. It would be a moral law that could not pertain to humans, in rather the way that “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is impertinent to the lives of ants. So all the moral laws that pertain to human life must be intelligible to us. It must be possible in principle for us to understand, apply, and obey them. It must, i.e., make some sense for us to wonder, and ask, “How ought we to behave?” And we must have some shot at answering the question.

        Which is good, because it is the question that we worry about more than any other that I can think of, in matters large and small. If no answer were possible, human life would not be what it is. We would not experience each day as a series of decisions, in each of which it was possible to err.

        Some moral logos or other is needed as a warp upon which men may then weave their daily lives.

        Notice then that some sorts of men weave better, nobler, more successful lives than others, along dimensions of value that everyone recognizes and admits: health, knowledge, sagacity, prudence, prosperity, longevity, fecundity, sanctity, and so forth. And it is easy to pick out certain common threads of the moral warps of such sorts of men. They are memorialized in our proverbs: honesty is the best policy, a stitch in time saves nine, don’t kill the golden goose, the Aristotelian Golden Mean, the Golden Rule, and so forth. Some sorts of men simply do a better job than others at implementing these logismoi that, taken together, form the warp of a good life, of the sort that everyone wants and admires. And we can recognize such men; we can sort them, and can limn the characters that specify their sort.

        So some sorts of men evidently live in closer apprehension of, and agreement to, such moral laws as pertain to human life. We would all therefore do better were they our governors, than other sorts of men – than scoundrels or failures. Their authority respecting moral matters is manifest in their lives. They ought, then, to bear authority among us, and we ought to give it to them. When they say, “we ought to do this, and not that,” we ought usually to listen to them – ought, i.e., usually to accept their moral guidance – to obey them.

        Whatever he might say to the contrary, then, anyone who rejects political authority as inherently unjust is a moral nominalist. To be a liberal is to be a nominalist.

        Liberals have a posterior problem, that liberalism is categorically incapable of solving, and that must therefore keep them ever in a state of some cognitive dissonance: namely, that to act at all in society is effectually to aver the existence and salience of some moral law or other, that impinges upon life, and shapes it; so that when the liberal says that we “ought” to live in freedom, he contradicts both his nominalist principles and his rejection of political authority. This is why one can’t live as a liberal without recourse to unprincipled exceptions.

      • I wrote:

        “Our” side always makes the mistake of thinking that liberals don’t believe in moral absolutes, don’t believe in God, etc.

        Kristor replied:

        Is it a mistake, though?

        Yes, it is indeed a mistake. It is arguably the central mistake of the right liberal and his cousin enablers of right liberalism (collectively the conservators of liberalism).

        That the liberalism to which liberals are (more or less, by definition) committed is incoherent does not imply that all of the beliefs/commitments of liberals qua human beings are incoherent. There have indeed, as an historical matter, been far more Christian liberals than non-Christian liberals (that is, human beings with strongly held commitments to both liberalism and Christianity).

        If you truly believe in moral realism, you can’t honestly act as though you don’t.

        The “honestly” there is a bit of a weasel word, conflating the man with the idea. Liberalism is in itself incoherent, so it cannot coexist with the truth; just as no lie can coexist with the truth. But most men believe six contrary things before breakfast, and often unwittingly.

        More liberals (human beings with some firm commitment to liberalism) than not do in fact believe in God, in moral absolutes, etc.

        That isn’t to discount the value of all of the other things you are saying, many of which are true of liberalism; it is merely to keep focus on the central point of disagreement, which is whether liberals – human beings with firm commitments to liberalism – do or do not, by and large, believe in God and moral absolutes.

        In fact they do. Some don’t, to be sure; but by and large the great majority of liberals do.

        This is critical for a whole host of reasons, but the central reason I brought up in my comment is that qua criticism of liberals, the contention that they – categorically as a class of human beings – do not genuinely believe in God, some absolute moral norms, etc – is simply false.

      • We agree that liberalism, being incoherent, can’t be true. As false, it cannot be reconciled with truth. So it cannot be credited together with truths, except by intellects somehow defective.

        A liberal Christian, then, has defective wits. Or else, more likely, he has not the patience to parse these things carefully. But that’s only to specify the nature of his intellectual defect.

        All of our lights are somewhat dimmed. As you say, it is common to believe six contradictory things before breakfast.

        I grant of course that there are many confused liberals, who cling to belief in God and absolute morality. But to the extent that a man adheres to liberal principles, he is a nominalist – for, because liberalism presupposes nominalism, there is no way to adhere to liberalism except by a prior implicit commitment to nominalism. To the extent that he is a realist, he is illiberal.

        But then, being false, liberalism is at war with reality. It is in particular at war with the body. So it is that liberals find themselves always more or less at war with their world, and with themselves (this is why we liken them to the Gnostics). It is why they must constantly resort to exceptions to their liberal principles in order to get along in embodied life. They must live as if realism were true, even though they think it isn’t.

        The liberalism of such a man is at war with his realism. He is in a constant state of cognitive dissonance.

        That internal war leaves liberals keyed up, irritated, defensive, alert to threat. And the more liberal they are, the more irritated and threatened they feel – because the more liberal they are, the more radical their disagreement with their own bodies, and with the “normal” culture that over thousands of years has learnt how to nourish flourishing bodies.

        The more liberal they are, the more profound their neuroses.

        Their liberal bits, being implicitly nominalist, are prone to an enraged defensive response to based reactionary arguments.

      • Liberalism as perpetuating self-annihilation is not incoherent all at. In fact, it can follow directly from the belief in a fallen man, the wages of sin are death and a true fear and hatred of one’s Father.

  6. Once internalized, the nominalist position obliterates any subjective requirement for consistency. How could there even be a question of consistency if the prime assumption were that there are no rules or authorities of any kind? In short, under that assumption, there is no consistency but only whim, ever shifting, ever opportunistic, eternally narcissistic and selfish. Thus “there is no author,” but every time Foucault’s essay on that topic is re-anthologized, it is Foucault who cashes the royalty check. (Given the Left’s venality, he’s probably still cashing them.)

    Thus, when Obama does X, everyone smiles, feels the shiver run up his leg, and declares the enactor of the deed to be a genius; but when Trump does X (the very same X), the great and awful maw voices its outrage.

    • Yes. Unfortunately for the moral nihilist, the human mind and its brain are such that internal inconsistency is suffered as a type of discomfort. Cognitive dissonance is irritating. At its most acute, it hurts.

      Is this why liberals whine all the time?

  7. I think a darker perception is necessitated.

    These “liberals” desire annihilation and play a game of “cat and mouse” with this very reality.

    Ask any “liberal” up to and including the alt-riter if a) he possess a right to existence from the beginning AND b) whether he posssess a right to self-annihilate? “No” and “yes” will be his answers. Ergo, his first principle is self-annihilation and he rages against any and all who shall deny him this right to self-annihilation. And it is because one truly believes that he possesses a right to self-annihilation that he can rationally and justifiably reason by “any means necessary.” So there is real coherence inside the mind of the self-annihilator.

  8. The entire premise is wrong. You can’t be a Social Justice Warrior unless you believe in the strong moral value of justice. The reaction to reactionaries is not because they have moral values, it’s because those values are in general awful, and have been used in the past as weapons to harm people

    Here’s like the third link you get if you google for “social justice”. A site for social workers, can’t get any more social justice-y than that:

    Social work is a practical profession aimed at helping people address their problems and matching them with the resources they need to lead healthy and productive lives.

    Beneath this practicality lies a strong value system that can be summarized in two words: social justice. Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities. Social workers aim to open the doors of access and opportunity for everyone, particularly those in greatest need.

    You may disagree with those values, but why try to deny that the values exist?

    You said:

    Such a suggestion cannot but be interpreted as an implicit attack upon your own personal existence

    Again, this is painfully misguided. Reactionary politics is directly responsible for actual attacks on people: on minorities, on women, on the poor. That is what gets people enraged.

    Oh well, I guess I shouldn’t care if you can’t accurately characterize your opponents. Flail away at your imaginary foes.

    • A.morphous, the argument is not premised on the notion that Social Justice Warriors don’t believe in and value justice, but that they don’t believe in absolute, objective morality. They believe in justice, but because in the absence of an objective moral law there can be no such thing as justice, properly so called, they have no way of justifying that belief, to others or – tragically – even to themselves. And this incapacity vitiates the justness of their vision of justice. It’s a dream they have; nothing more. “I have a dream!” “Imagine!” Such bathetic appeals to a fantasy are the best, most moving stuff they’ve got.

      Not that they are ever too consciously aware of this difficulty, but it lurks ever just under the surface, and threatens to break through, ruining all sorts of personal, social, and emotional commitments.

      Don’t tell me I don’t understand this. I used to be a liberal. My mother was a social worker, and my father was an Episcopal priest. I grew up in that world. I simply remember what it’s like.

      Reactionary politics is directly responsible for actual attacks on people: on minorities, on women, on the poor. That is what gets people enraged.

      Oh, please. Please. Stalin alone killed more people than all the reactionaries in world history. So did Mao. And today, true to historical form, it is not the reactionaries who are beating up the Low Men in the streets, but the Leftists.

      The bottom line, a.morphous, is that reactionaries think it is just fine that people should live more or less as people have always liked to live, and that they ought to be left alone so that they can live that way. It is the Social Justice Warriors who, historically, have been ready and willing to kill everyone who wants to live the old fashioned traditional way so as to make room for the New Man. I.e., to kill almost everyone, other than themselves.

      • Social Justice Warriors don’t believe in and value justice, but that they don’t believe in absolute, objective morality…

        …reactionaries think it is just fine that people should live more or less as people have always liked to live,

        Hm, you are giving the game away. Reactionaries (according to you) also don’t have an absolute objective morality, they just want to live “as people have always liked to live”. Seems like you are closer to nihilism than SJWs, who at least have some values they can articulate.

        If we wanted to live “how people have always liked to live” we should probably revert to bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers. That isn’t likely to happen, short of a total collapse of industrial civilization, but neither is whatever medievalist fantasy you are cooking up.

        The stuff about Stalin is also nonsense, however many people he killed doesn’t vitiate the fact that reactionary forces have also killed plenty. And SJWs aren’t Stalin. Are you accusing your own mother of political genocide?

      • Wow. Pretty weak, a.morphous.

        Hm, you are giving the game away. Reactionaries (according to you) also don’t have an absolute objective morality, they just want to live “as people have always liked to live.”

        From the fact that people have always liked to live in a traditional way it does not at all follow that there is no absolute objective morality. On the contrary. Healthy minds want to live in such a way as to prosper and reproduce; and to do this they must live in accord with reality – including moral reality.

        If we wanted to live “how people have always liked to live” we should probably revert to bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers.

        People have not always liked to live as hunter-gatherers. Some people like to live as nomadic hunter-gatherers, others like civilization. Socialism is a reliable way to turn civilization into poverty, into a chaos in which people must resort to hunting, gathering, stealing, scavenging, in order to live.

        Viz., Venezuela at this very moment.

        The stuff about Stalin is also nonsense; however many people he killed doesn’t vitiate the fact that reactionary forces have also killed plenty.

        Sure; people kill each other. Men are evil. But they are not all equally evil. The fact that reactionaries have killed people doesn’t vitiate the fact that Leftists have killed vastly more. And in such a short time! They’ve only been at it since 1789. Leftism is *obviously* far more evil than reaction, or than the traditional societies – which is to say, the men, women and children – it seeks to destroy.

        And SJWs aren’t Stalin. Are you accusing your own mother of political genocide?

        That’s a stupid question. But I know quite a few extremely polite and wonderful liberals inclined to Social Justice Warfare, who think it entirely appropriate to kill Trump supporters. So do you know some such, I wager. These true sweet hearts would never hurt a fly; but they applaud the black shirts who beat men and women on the street.

        These are the people – useful idiots, Lenin is said to have called them – without whom such as Stalin could not do their bloody work.

        These points are all quite obvious. You are far too smart to have missed them. I’m confused; how can you have thought it feasible to have proposed these risible arguments?

      • Nothing wrong with stealing and scavenging as long as we do so by popular vote, and/or judicial decree – “as long as it’s legal and [therefore] moral,” and all that.

  9. I am a liberal (according to Zippy’s definition) but I also believe in moral authority as well. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. I do agree that what you describe exists just that it does not apply across the board to all liberals.

    • Winston, to the extent that you credit the existence of a moral authority outside and above yourself, you are not a moral nominalist – and that bit of you is illiberal, despite the fact that you identify as a liberal.

      But to the extent that you truly are a moral nominalist – and everyone who sins is a bit of a moral nominalist, effectually (in that behavior is predicated upon prior beliefs about how best to behave) – you are at war with reality, and with your own deepest self.

      The wages of moral nominalism is rage; but when they are ultimately cashed out, the change given in return is death.

      But, anyway, the post was written mostly with a feeling of astonishment and sorrow at the intense rage now being expressed by the Left – even sweet people of my acquaintance, whom I would previously have characterized as moderate liberals. It is truly startling.

      • This is interesting. I made a similar argument against Zippy’s claim that Nazism was a form of liberalism even though the police state it created did not prioritize the freedom or the equality of its citizens. He and Terry Morris argued that I can’t compartmentalize when it comes to labeling something liberal. At least that is how I understood their argument. I suspect they would say that I misunderstood what they said which seems to be the common reaction from them.

      • Winston, as Zippy has said, and I have agreed, freedom and equality among the herrenvolk was a leading feature of Nazism. I know you object on the basis that Zippy wrenches a short passage from Mein Kampf out of context, but I have read Mein Kampf and that simply is not true; the passage Zippy cites is a common theme throughout Hitler’s book. Moreover, it is a common theme throughout Nazi propaganda from 1921-22 to 1944. Here is a short essay by Goebbels to the effect:

        http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/angrif05.htm

        Keep in mind also what Mitt Romney once said with respect to his differences with Ted Kennedy while running for governor of Massachusetts (rough paraphrase – I’ll need to find a citation as this is from memory):

        ‘Senator Kennedy and I agree on everything he says, we just differ in how to go about it.’

      • I never said Mein Kampf was taken out of context. What I did say was that a police state like Nazi Germany that had zero concern for the freedom and equality of its citizens can not be liberal per Zippy’s definition.

      • winstonscrooge:

        …a police state like Nazi Germany that had zero concern for the freedom and equality of its citizens…

        You keep saying that as if it were self evidently true, when in fact it has been demonstrated to be in fact false. It was in fact protection of the freedom and equal rights of the herrenvolk which led the Nazis to adopt the political structures and reich-mythologies which they adopted. In fact it is the self-contradictory pursuit of political freedom itself which leads quite directly to a monolithic comprehensively-managing police state government:

        https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/why-insisting-on-more-freedom-brings-about-more-tyranny/

        You also, one step prior to your false historical picture of the Nazis, simply fail to grasp that the very concept of political freedom (and its concomitant, equal rights) is self-contradictory, with all that that implies.

        You aren’t alone: a lot of people don’t grasp this. But until you understand – as you clearly don’t – what it means for real and disparate peoples in real and disparate contexts to adopt a self-contradictory doctrine, you won’t grasp the subject of political liberalism and its implications at all.

      • Kristor:

        But, anyway, the post was written mostly with a feeling of astonishment and sorrow at the intense rage now being expressed by the Left – even sweet people of my acquaintance, whom I would previously have characterized as moderate liberals. It is truly startling.

        It’s easy for a liberal to be a “moderate” when everything is going his/her way.

      • Winstonscrooge:

        What I did say was that a police state like Nazi Germany that had zero concern for the freedom and equality of its citizens can not be liberal per Zippy’s definition.

        Okay, Winston, correction duly noted. But what in the name of all that is holy do you mean by “zero concern for the freedom and equality of its citizens”? Zero? Really?

        By your reasoning our founding forbears were not authentically liberal either, since they denied women the vote and property rights, homosexuals the vote and property rights, Jews the vote and political rights, Catholics the vote and political rights, etc, etc.

        Are you saying our liberal founders – Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Webster, et al, were not in fact liberals?

  10. Pingback: Exploring Intellectual Conservatism: Essentialism v. Nominalism | Winston Scrooge

  11. Zippy you said, “For sane people, a real counterexample calls for revision of the theory or metaphysics which its existence contradicts. For positivists, a real counterexample is something to be dismissed unless it can be incorporated into positive theory.” (https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/the-positivist-blindfold/)

    It seems you dismiss anything that cannot be incorporated into your positive theories that (1) liberalism is responsible for all the evils of the modern world and (2) there is no such thing as a free state. To me, this is clearly demonstrated by you refusing to admit that the USA is not more free than North Korea. This is a position any reasonable person would disagree with in my estimation.

    • winstonscrooge:

      To me, this is clearly demonstrated by you refusing to admit that the USA is not more free than North Korea.

      In the first place, the “more free” term you are using is inherently ambiguous and question begging, as I have pointed out to you before, with no sign that you’ve actually grasped the point. What is good in any given society is as much attributable to what that society forbids and sanctions, in the particulars, as it is to what that society “permits” (which is to say supports, enforces and destroys opposition to through informal and formal structures of law and custom). To the extent the USA is better than North Korea that is as much or more a function of what isn’t accepted and permitted as it is to what is accepted and permitted. Restrictions on arbitrary confiscation of private property by Communists are, well, restrictions. Every right which empowers carries inextricable corresponding restrictions; in fact each and every single empowerment gives rise to a plenitiude of restrictions. So the very notion of an abstracted “freedom” is nonsense.

      You might as well complain that I refuse to concede to you that the USA is more roundsquarian than North Korea. When you make an intrinsically nonsensical assertion the only truthful response is that your assertion is – and I mean this quite literally – nonsense. That you think the USA puts the right sort of people in prison and North Korea puts the wrong sort of people in prison may be true enough, but labeling that difference in the details freedom is just self deception.

      In the second place, intramural conflicts between which kinds of liberalism are “better” or “worse” are in my view a pointless exercise, or worse. More immediately benign forms of liberalism (to the extent we even buy that there is such a thing) cultivate, protect, spread, and give rise to more virulent forms. This is the basic problem with “conservatism”, about which much has already been written: what it conserves these days is, for the most part, just earlier and more larval stages of liberalism. It is better to have symptomatic carriers of virulent disease, or asymptomatic carriers? Showing that not-yet-symptomatic disease carriers are “healthier” than symptomatic disease carriers doesn’t have the positive implications that the term “healthier” implies.

      In the third, you really shouldn’t wave around terms like “positivism” – as a supposedly serious characterization – when you have obviously just encountered the concept for the first time. It is up to you of course, but at the end of the day it just makes you look ignorant.

  12. Terry Morris – Let’s compare the USA of the founding fathers with Nazi Germany using Zippy’s definition of a liberal government (i.e., one whose primary purpose is to secure freedom and equality for its citizens).

    The USA of the founding fathers had the bill of rights enshrined in its constitution. This is a pretty good indicator that the country considered it a primary purpose to secure freedom and equality for its citizens.

    Nazi Germany by contrast restricted free speech, the right to assembly, the press, the right to freely exercise religion (ask the Jews about that one) and the right to bear arms. There was certainly less protection against unreasonable search and seizure of property. I’m not sure about jury trials or excessive bail.

  13. Pingback: Maybe our fried ice can help reduce the fever | Zippy Catholic

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