Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives

Note: “Julie near Chicago” originally posted the link to this article in a comment under the article “5 reasons why Christians should not obtain a state marriage license”. Promoted to front page. This article exposes the fundamentally religious nature of the struggle we libertarians are facing. We ignore it at our peril. It also makes clear that we will never win without convincing more women. M.n.

By Mallory Millet

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”  Winston Churchill wrote this over a century ago.

During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment.  I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!”

What a giggle we girls had over that. “How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are,” we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.

Sometime later, I was a young divorcee with a small child. At the urging of my sister, I relocated to NYC after spending years married to an American executive stationed in Southeast Asia. The marriage over, I was making a new life for my daughter and me.  Katie said, “Come to New York.  We’re making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it.”

Continue reading here.

52 thoughts on “Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives

  1. As long ago as the fifties Ayn Rand pointed out that the task charged to the feminist scum was to poison relationships between men and women and undermine the family–the basis of middle-class (alright–I can’t spell boojjwaar) society. They have carried out their charge to the best of their evil abilities.

    • THey have more or less succeeded.
      It’s hard actually now, to see a scenario in which the damage done can ever be repaired.

      I can’t think of one: can you?

      Even if all the academics, writers and authors and politicos tha brought this about could be miraculously and silently trucked in wagons to a death camp, somewhere in – let is say – Arctic Russia… would the problem go away? I don’t think so, for you can’t zap absolutely everyone who heard the bastards’ words or read them.

      Perhaps that’s why we’ve never been visited by intelligent aliens. Because when a complex brain evolves, some brains work out stone-age-barbarian-huntergatherer methods of “getting animals and sex-repro-resources from the others” that conflict with the methods of expansion “off-planet”.

  2. A mixture of tactics – partly Gramsci style infiltration of institutions and spreading of ideas – in everything from elite universities to the local library, And partly Frankfurt School style victim identity politics – P.C.ism

    The left have always tried to destroy civil society (based, as it is, on the family). Sometimes only joke organisations have tried – like the absurd “Bavarian Illuminati” (“my evil plan is as follows….” types), sometimes far more competent (such as the British Fabians).

    The Frankfurt (not really in Frankfurt any more – as they had moved to New York and to California) School (Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse….. and American “fellow travellers” of the Reds such as Herbert McClosky, Lionel Trilling, and Adorno’s pal the “liberal” Richard Hofstader ) may have imported these “cultural” tactics into Marxism, but they did not invent them. The 1960s are a complex subject – the cultural changes were NOT just some Marxist conspiracy, but the stuff that Mallory Millett is writing about obviously was (and is). In the 1960s it was a fringe thing – most families were O.K., but now it is not fringe it is mainstream. The P.C. (modern Frankfurt School) people have massive influence not just over the elite universities, but over local colleges and schools also. And they have an iron grip on the media – especially the entertainment media.

    The objective remains the same as it was in the time of Rousseau and so on – destroy traditional society (civil society) and establish collectivism upon the ashes of the destroyed society. And if the left are rather vague about how exactly the wonderful new collectivism would work – actually they have always been vague (for example Karl Marx said it would be “unscientific” to answer any specific questions about how his new society would work – how nice for him).

    By the way – note how the left feminists were given their ideas and attitudes by MALE Reds.

    None of the people I have mentioned in this comment was a woman – no more than Howard Z. (who gives them their ideas about American history) was a women. Some “independence”.

  3. David one society where the cultural left seems to have failed is Israel – Israel has mostly stable families, a positive fertility rate (more than two children per women) and is more (not less) religious than it was in the 1960s. And I am talking about the Jewish population – this is ironic as many of the Frankfurt School P.C. types were of Jewish origin. If they visited modern Israel today they would not feel at home – indeed they would feel like they were in the United States of the 1950s (on everything from respect for the military to strong families). Yet the power of the left in the education system is just as strong in Israel as it is in Britain or the United States – accept that most (not all) Israelis just seem to shrug it off when they leave school and college (they do not “internalise” the values and principles the left are trying to indoctrinate them with).

    • That’s clearly why the rest of the world’s gubblentments want Israel destroyed. The “palestinians” of course were invented on May 15th 1948 as part of this purpose and strategy. As that brecht fella or whoever he was called would have said: A New People Has Been Elected.

      If Israel were to take my advice, it would be to develop a hydrogen-bomb – and (more important) the means of “delivering it to its target(s) – many of them – as soon as it can.

  4. Okay, I’ve only skimmed it but I’m having some trouble with this. It’s not ringing true for me. Major first problem comes with this-

    By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

    -from the litany. This reads like something the right believes about Feminism, not something from Feminists themselves, like an atheist writing about Christians as other atheists think they are, rather than how they actually are.

    The 2nd Wave Feminist movement has been consistently and dogmatically opposed to “promiscuity, eroticism and prostitution” (as well as pornography) since day one, and historically verifiably so. Significant elements were even also anti-homosexual (in line with the rest of it from the 1st Wave), notably the Redstockings who were an embryo of the New York Radicals and Women Against Pornography.


    They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women.

    This is 1969. NOW was established by Betty Friedan in 1966, three years earlier. It already existed.

    This reads to me like something written by somebody writing for a particular audience to confirm their beliefs. Specifically, the Bill Lind Cultural Marxist Hypothesis that tries to explain for American conservatives that 1960s social libertinism was a Marcusian plot. There’s a distinct whiff of fish about it.

  5. A little more. This is admittedly from Wikipedia, but I think is a fair assessment-

    According to Germaine Greer, it promoted not having leaders in society, “characterized men as the enemy,” considered “Love” to be “‘the response of the victim to the rapist'”, and believed that marriage as a “proprietary relationship” and uterine pregnancy would “no longer prevail.”

    The Feminists held that women were oppressed by their internalization of patriarchal sex roles, and hence suffered from a kind of false consciousness. To liberate themselves from such oppressive roles, The Feminists held that the feminist movement must be entirely autonomous from men and eventually came to hold that women should be free of men in their personal lives as well. The group was strongly opposed to the sexual revolution, holding that it was simply a way for men to get easier access to women’s bodies. (Ti-Grace Atkinson was one of the first radical feminists to be specifically critical of pornography.) They at first advocated that women practice celibacy, and later came to advocate political lesbianism. The separatist ideas of The Feminists were reflected in their membership quota, restricting women who lived with men to one-third of its members, and excluding married women entirely in 1971. After Atkinson’s departure, The Feminists moved in the direction of advocating matriarchy and developing a “woman’s religion”, ideas that later came to be known as cultural feminism.

    Although The Feminists disbanded in 1973, they played an important role in the development of cultural feminism, separatist feminism, and anti-pornography feminism (Barbara Mehrhof later became an organizer for Women Against Pornography), tendencies that were predominant in radical feminism by the late 1970s.

    This is the group which Mallory Millet is describing. Do they really sound like people who would sit round the kitchen table chanting in favour of “promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution”?

    (Just to confirm that this is the group- here are Lila Karp and Kate Millet

    together at “The Feminists” group, and here is the page on The Feminists itself from which the above description of it comes-

    I think Mallory Millet has a memory problem. And it is a big problem for us in understanding the past. She is blaming sexual revolution values -“promiscuity, eroticism and (at least, acceptance rather than than persecution of) prostitution- on a group of women- the Radical Feminists- who were and are absolutely diametrically opposed to those values. It’s the equivalent of denouncing Margaret Thatcher as a Communist or Tony Blair as a radical libertarian. This is a serious credibility problem for the article.

  6. Interesting points David.

    Ian M.M. does not have a “memory problem” – radical (not all feminists – the specific factions the lady is talking about) feminists (who had absorbed the various sub Marxist ideas pushed by the modern Frankfurt School – the P.C. crowd, most of whom were men) taught both these things at the same time.

    Both that women should hate men – AND sexual promiscuity. It may be a contradiction to you – but not from their perspective. Both sex-drugs-and-rock-and-roll (or as Herbert Marcuse put it “turn on, tune in, and drop out), and all-men-are-rapists (and so on).

    Remember the objective – the destruction of Civil Society. BOTH hatred of men and sleeping around will tend to undermine the family and other cultural institutions upon which society rests – destroy it, so that the collectivist utopia (which is never clearly described – we are never told how it is supposed to work), could be built upon the ashes.

    You forget that many radical feminists (not all of them – there were the lesbian ones) slept with as many men as they could (as a political act) to show their hatred and contempt for monogamy (and the family and……) Indeed some got sexual illnesses which sterilised them (that was actually sometimes welcomed – as it meant no more Western children to “rape the planet” – the Green version of anti capitalist collectivism). And they did all they could to spread these ideas and practices through the culture.

    Certainly there were also anti sex feminists – but they had the same objective as the pro promiscuity feminists (who also often taught man-hatred, even whilst getting their collectivist ideas from MEN) But it is just tactics – the objective (the destruction of the West) is the same.

    There are (of course) libertarian feminists – but they are few (very few). And their ideas do not tend to be taught in the schools and universities and pushed by the “mainstream” media.

  7. The contradictions in the popular culture are extreme.

    For example the actress G.P. (hardly a great thinker – but a typical Hollywood type), BOTH denounces men (demands that the government pass equal pay laws so that poor single mothers “like me” can have equal pay – the lady is in fact paid millions of Dollars, but she has been TAUGHT that she is “oppressed”) and AT THAT SAME TIME she worships a man – and wants him to be all-powerful.

    “He should have all the power” (no more checks and balances – Mr Obama should have the powers of Mr Putin) and he is “so handsome I can not speak properly”., as the actress throws herself at the feet of her Lord and Master – whilst AT THE SAME TIME denounces men for oppressing woman and demanding that the government smash the patriarchy.

    Millions of women look up to people like GP (I am not kidding – they really do) and nod at her ravings. In spite of all the contradictions.

    “All men are rapists, sex is evil – smash the patriarchy” and “Whip me more, master – do anything you want to me, you should have ALL THE POWER”.

    At the same time.

    The old vision of woman as the Queen of the Home – the sensible foundation of society (supporting her husband when he has good ideas – but bringing him down-to-Earth when he goes a bit potty) is the enemy of BOTH these visions.

    It is the enemy of both these visions because it depends on women being RATIONAL – following “capitalist reason”. Neither going off into lunatic man-hatred (demanding government interventions against men – blissfully unaware that the government police and army, and so on, are made up of mostly men), or sleeping with every “master” figure and demanding (yes demanding) abuse as a wild protest against marriage (as a partnership) and monogamy in general.

    It (radical feminism – not other forms of feminism) is not really a revolt against men – it is a revolt against “capitalist” REASON (just as the radical MEN who thought it up – intended it to be)..

    • John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Fundamentally this is the problem. During the Cold War the CIA took control of the American media as part of the total war against the Soviet menace (this is well documented now, if you care to do the research, the sexy stuff like MKULTRA is a bit of a distraction) so the cultural construct we live in today, the leavings of “the American Century,” is very much the result of the aspirations of what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex. Part of the project was the deliberate dumbing down of education to make people more malleable, alongside a destruction of moral and ethical standards. Nobody knows anything any more, in spite of plenty of opinionated people being available (Paul Marks, cough).
      This is a war of ideas, of ethics, but most people have neither. The problem for libertarians and anarchists is, as with Ian B, we know what we’re against but we’re less clear on what we’re for. Which means it’s not clear to most people, the people who simply live for what they can get, why they shouldn’t just keep their heads down and go to work, pay their taxes, and give lip service to PC as something they do at the office. Life’s not so bad, after all, compared to “them others” we see on the TV.
      In any case fundamentally it comes down to power: who, at any given place or time holds the (metaphorical or actual) gun. (Which is why I dream of my gunships in high orbit.) The current western polical-economic system will collapse, that’s plainly inevitable. What will replace it will be determined by whose ideas promise the most relief from the awfulness of that.
      That is issue lovers of liberty need to worry about: not feminism, cultural marxism, what have you. Having a clear picture of the way forward where liberty plays the fundamental part. I don’t see that picture, I see general aspirations with nothing to back it up.

  8. At least one prominent UK femmi shagged around in her youth before adopting a tweedy persona.
    If “Roissy” of the Chateau Heartiste site is correct this maybe the nature of women–longing to grovel at the feet of their “Alpha” master while also keen to join a howling mob of denouncers.

  9. Paul, Ecks, you’re not quite seeing what I’m saying here. Feminism has been a pretty broad movement since anyone can declare themself a Feminist, just as anyone can declare themself a “libertarian”, so we get all sorts too. I’m talking here about the specific people being described.

    Asserting that these particular Feminists were sitting around a table chanting the the somewhat implausible mouthful of “by promoting promiscuity, eroticism and prostitution” is akin to someone asserting that they were at a meeting of the Northamptonshire Libertarian Cabal at which Paul Marks and I were shouting “down with capitalism!” and “hooray for the labour theory of value!”. It just doesn’t fit with what Paul and I stand for. That there are some libertarians who might shout such things (such as Mr Kevin Carson) is neither here nor there. Paul and I wouldn’t and claiming we had would render the description highly suspect.

  10. Ian you were not there – yet you claim to know what was chanted (or not chanted), You may be correct, I do not know. After all the women could be lying. or (as you suggest) not remembering correctly which feminists were there.

    Also you do not seem to see that for radical feminists (the leadership) whether it is “down with sex” or “screw everything that moves” does not matter.

    It is all a matter of tactics – they do not stand for either. it is all just tactics (their followers are true believers – they are not), the objective (the destruction of “capitalist” society) is what matters, The tactics (promoting random sex one minute – denouncing it the next minute) are just tactics.

    Even the silly followers can push contradictory positions – witness the silly GP (quite good in films – as long as someone else is writing what the lady says).

  11. Mr Ecks – I do not think it is the nature of women. After all many women are interested in their home and family – they are perfectly sane and sensible (more so than many men).However, for generations now women have been told to be ashamed of being like that – that it is not “correct” to want to build a home and family. That it is a betrayal of the sisterhood (which should come before husband and children).

    There are also women who (like some men) are obsessed with their work – the Madame Curie type (or the Ayn Rand type).

    Of course there is also the herd mentality – the women who (for example) when a stooge in their group (put there for the test) gives a deliberately wrong answer to a question of mathematics, all the rest of the group (out of solidarity) will give the same (wrong) answer. Or, when asked to produce a picture, will all produce a picture of the same thing.

    But some men are like that also.

  12. Paul, I’ve been studying Feminism for years. I defer to you on matters like German philosophy, but on this I know quite a lot.

    With all due respect, I think you have a weakness in your analysis of our opponents (or indeed anyone who disagrees with you on occasion), which is to assume that they do not mean what they say they mean. Other people have beliefs. Socialists have beliefs. Feminists have beliefs. They are, like us, trying to achieve outcomes, and they like us have consistent ideas as to what is necessary to achieve them. They aren’t just saying any old rubbish. Radical feminists have a (reasonably) consistent theory, and we need to be correct about what it is.

    The Radicals- particularly at the period of history under discussion- were a very small group of particular people. Kate Millett wrote books. We can read them and see what is in them. We can look at the historical advocacy of these Radical Feminists and their activist actions, and see if they match to the claims in the article. They don’t.

    And here, as an aside, the claim that they chanted at the table “by promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality” is an immediate eyebrow raiser. People don’t talk that way. It is like writing a comedy sketch and having some stereotypical lefties chanting “down with the exploitation of the proletariat by the expropriation of consumer value!”. It’s comical. People might believe that, but they don’t say it that way in real speech. Mallory Millett is dramatising the meeting for her readers, and in the process has them spouting awkward dialogue that conforms not to what the New York Radicals believed, but to what conservatives, 45 years later, want them to have believed.

    M. Millett is clearly a strongly committed conservative of the American type. She turned her back on the New Left. That is fine. But memories are enormously fallible, as we all know, and nigh five decades later, she appears to be remembering things as they ought to be to conform to her current beliefs. Radical feminism as a larger movement, and the New York Radicals in particular, have never promoted “promiscuity, eroticism and prostitution”. They have been the driving force seeking the intensification of prohibition of those things. The very group described here- the precise people sitting around that kitchen table- spawned Women Against Pornography. If you actually read Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics (I have a PDF open right now) it mentions prostitution purely in negative terms as exploitation by the patriarchy.

    The simple (if strange) reality is that both American Conservatism and American Radical Feminism are fiercely opposed to “promiscuity, eroticism and prostitution”, both seek an explanation for 1960s libertinism, both have spent the past 40 years blaming each other, while simultaneously working together for their prohibition (as with Christian Fundamentalists and Mackinnon/Dworkin/Steinem working together to enact anti-pornography statutes). Horovitz and other former leftist conservatives believe that the 1960s libertinism was caused by Marcuse’s Eros And Civilization. It is better to say that a bunch of randy left-wing students looked around for a justification for shagging a lot, and found Marcuse (and Reich and Freud) as justifiers for what they wanted to do anyway. But whatever.

    Because the Cultural Marxist Hypothesis tries to make that libertinism was a plot to undermine Western Civ (and yes, the Leftists who had found Marcuse did indeed at least at some times claim that they were shagging each other as a political act, but that’s not quite the same thing), and because the Feminists are on the Left, believers in it, such as apparently Mallory Millett, have to somehow fit the square peg of sexual libertinism into the round hole of Radical Feminism, and that is what this article does. And conservatives lap it up, because it fits with what they believe about the world. But it does not fit to history and reality.

    I don’t think Millett is lying. I think memories are highly fallible. I think she has retrofitted the current beliefs of the Right onto her own memory. And that is how we end up with a bunch of radical, proto-separatist anti-sex Feminists sitting around a table intoning the clumsy line that has been put in their mouths here.

    • I agree with many of the criticisms of “cultural Marxism” that have been mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, and I written and spoken about some of these issues extensively in various venues. However, I agree with Ian that it’s important not to misrepresent the other side’s positions. Both the Left and the Right have the habit of judging each other on the basis on the perceived extremists in the other side’s camp.

      For instance, to many American liberals and leftists all evangelicals are Christian Reconstructionists who want to stone homosexuals to death, and all immigration restrictionists are Nazis who want to send Hispanics to concentration camps.

      I find the same kind of thinking on the Right as well. Few people have spent more energy on attacking PC than I have, but it’s not appropriate to critique PC on the basis of its most outlandish extremes. It’s tempting to do so because of the shock value involved, but it also tends to get critics of PC dismissed as paranoids who evaluate the entire spectrum of progressive opinion on the basis of some lunatic who wants schools to pass rules requiring boys to dress like girls or whatever.

      The Millet article struck me as perhaps sincere when she’s writing from personal experience, but rather decrepit from a historian’s perspective.

      Our main enemy is not some Marxist-Maoist-hedonist lunatic fringe, but ordinary mainstream progressives. Ian B. described the progressives pretty well in another thread. It’s these folks who are curbing free speech in the name of anti-racism, curbing religious liberty in the name of anti-homophobia, curbing educational freedom in the name of protecting children from religious abuse, banning smoking and guns, imposing nanny state regulations on foods and beverage, supporting drug prohibition not in the name of morality but in the name of therapeutic paternalism, supporting criminalization of sex work on feminist grounds, etc.

      These people are hardly Marxist lunatics who engage in group sex while taking a break from reading the Little Red Book. They have more in common 80s church ladies crying about satanic rock music than they do a commune of commie cultists. Guys like Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire one-time Republican and champion of the nanny state, or politicians like Hilary Clinton, a statist progressive in the venerable American tradition, are the symbols of who the real enemy is.

  13. I believe that most of the ordinary activists believe what they are saying Ian – no matter how many contradictions there are (I have met university students and other such types).

    But the leaders?

    No I think they are intelligent enough to see the contradictions in what they say (demanding random sex one minute, denouncing sex the next minute), they just do not care about the contradictions – as long as the various tactics serve to destroy “capitalism” (civil society).

  14. Keith Preston the following will be written on the assumption that you are being sincere (Ian tells me that I should make this assumption about people more often – rather than just assume that foes do not actually mean what they say).

    “Political Correctness” (PC) is a tactic – originally applied (among the Hollywood Reds and elsewhere) in the 1930s to mean keeping to the Moscow line. From the 1960s onwards the “New” left (the Frankfurt School of Marxism people such as Herbert Marcuse – but also more serious thinkers) took over the idea and made P.C. part of their cultural Marxism (no longer loyal to the orthodox Moscow line) the cultural Marxist idea being that the “working class” had “failed” the Revolution after World War One – and that new victim groups had to be found to be used as cannon fodder against civilisation (what Marxists call “capitalism”) for the purpose of destroying civil society (again “capitalism”), the assumption being that after the destruction had been achieved, a wonderful new society (which is never clearly described and subjected to examination – that was forbidden by Karl Marx himself) will be built on the ashes and dried blood of the old world.

    To talk of “moderate” P.C. is an error, as is the habit (in Britain) of talking about “Political Correctness gone mad” – there is no “gone mad” P.C. is what it is – and it was created for he express purpose of destroying civil society – civilisation (“capitalism”). This does NOT mean that the average activist on the street knows this (although sometimes they do – for example the mobs who chanted “burn-baby-burn” as they burned areas of American cities in the 1960s certainly knew what the objective was, and it was NOT that black people know longer had to sit in the backs of busses – after all the cities that actually had the riots did not have that rule on busses anyway). But the leaders in the universities do know the objective – they are “anti capitalists” i.e. enemies of civilisation (in the hope that some new civilisation, which they never describe clearly or subject to critical examination, will be built upon the ashes and dried blood).

    This does NOT mean that every person who says they are feminist is a P.C. person (certainly NOT – there are libertarian feminists and so on) – but P.C. is what it is, and its academics invented.

    Karl Popper test – to see whether what I have written above is “refutable” or is just me being my nasty dogmatic self.

    Simple – have an academic supporter of P.C. sit a polygraph test (without training in how to beat such tests – after all even I can do so) to declare how much they love and support “capitalism”.

    Do you support “capitalism” Mr Preston? Are you an enemy of “Social Justice” (i.e. the doctrine that all income and wealth belong to “the people” and should be “distributed” according to some principle of “fairness”) ?

    A supporter of “capitalism” – an enemy of “Social Justice”?

    I do not think that you are Mr Preston. I am open to being corrected (for you to show yourself to be a friend of “capitalism” and an enemy of “Social Justice”), but that is my opinion at the present time that you are.

    But, as Ian has pointed out to me, I tend to be a “guilty until proven guilty” sort of person. In my defence I was not always like that – but being betrayed (rather badly betrayed) can have the effect of making a person cynical.

    As does the habit of “Critical Theory” (Adorno Frankfurt School of Marxism) people of NOT subjecting socialism (or “social justice”) to the “critical examination” they insist on subjecting “capitalism” to.

    Sometimes people are obviously dishonest – such as Herbert Marcuse with his redefinition of “tolerance” to mean INTOLERANCE of any movement from “the right” (what Marcuse does in books such as “One Dimensional Man” is not innocent error – it is patent dishonesty). However, with other people the case is less obvious – there is room for doubt (for the possibility that they are actually not guilty).

    This (the possibility that people are not guilty) is something I have to remind myself of quite often.

    • Paul, it’s always refreshing to debate you and be called a commie and a social justice-monger. Those are not the usual labels that are thrown in my direction. Ironically, one of my readers recently inquired about me to Kevin Carson, and Carson apparently responded by expressing disdain for my lack of concern for social justice.

      • Here are my basic “Black Flag” positions on economics which I’m sure you will be displeased with.

        The general theory of political economy I hold to is roughly the same as Carson’s, and I wrote an essay for LA back in 2008 outlining my perspective. Since you don’t like links, I won’t provide one. But it’s available online: “Free Enterprise: The Antidote to Corporate Plutocracy”

        I generally favor organizing what I call “People’s Economic Fronts” for the purpose of creating a federation of organizations for the purpose of attacking forms of state intervention in the economy that have the effect of centralizing control over wealth and resources, i..e. the things outlined in Carson’s “A Political Program for Anarchists.”

        I am for simultaneously organizing alternative economic enterprises for the purpose of decentralizing economic power on the model advocated by many early socialists before socialism became synonymous with Leninism or the managerial public administration state (“social democracy”). Larry Gambone gives a very good overview of this history in his “The Myth of Socialism as Statism.”

        I am for replacing the welfare state with a “negative income tax” as a prelude to abolishing state welfare altogether.

        I am generally for race and class reparations on the model Carson advocated in his “Reparations Cui Bono?” though I am generally less committed to this position than those stated above.

        I am for forming taxpayer unions for the purpose of engaging in organized tax resistance.

        I am for organizing anarcho-syndicalist labor unions for the purpose of staging wildcat strikes against superstores, fast food chains, and other bastions of labor exploitation.

        I am for opening all state property to homesteading on (more or less) the model favored by Hans Hermann Hoppe.

        I am for homesteading the “property” of welfare corporations on the model favored by Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess.

        I don’t adhere to a univeralist theory of property rights. I think these are cultural constructs rooted in particular traditions (like sexual mores and religious beliefs).

        I am for repealing regulations of business from the bottom up (see Walter Williams’ “The State Against Blacks”) and cutting taxes from the top down. I’m particularly opposed to economic regulations that diminish the supply and raise the cost of housing, or that hinder the formation of individual and small enterprises (zoning, occupational licensing, land use, building codes, etc).

        I am for creation alternative social service organizations for the provision of schools, healthcare, welfare, etc such as workers and professional unions, ethnic fellowship organizations (“Korean-American Association”), consumer cooperatives, stakeholder federations, tenants associations, religious societies, etc, etc, etc.

        I am for squatters’ rights and claimants unions.

        Where I differ from Carson and the C4SS crowd is not so much on economics as much as their embrace of the neo-Marxist “race, class, gender’ reductionism that you find among the academic Left. I don’t agree with the way they use this as a lead in to special pleading on behalf of leftist pet causes and favorite groups. Worst of all, they ignore a core insight of conflict theory: i.e. that former outgroups are often just as abusive as the ingroups they replace when they become powerful. The latter is what is currently happening with so-called “political correctness” or what I call “totalitarian humanism.”

        For instance, I reject the left’s de facto racial determinism that attempts to explain everything in terms of “white privilege.” I actually tend to agree with free-market conservatives like Thomas Sowell on the relationship between race, economics, and discrimination, though I would agree with “anarcho-black nationalists” like Ashanti Alston and Lorenzo Ervin on the police state. I also favor ethnic self-determination based on free association for all ethnic groups, not the silly “white guilt” nonsense you find among leftists.

        I’m all for equality of the sexes in terms of social roles. I want to see plenty of female anarchist political leaders, organizers, activists, propagandists, guerrilla fighters, etc, and I’m certainly for “equal opportunity” for jobs and education and all that. In my view, Western societies have more or less achieved the latter objectives. For instances, many U.S. college campuses now have more female students than male ones. What I reject is the lunatic radical feminism that has become state policy in Scandinavia, and that dominates the left-wing of the anarchist and libertarian milieus, I think that form of feminism is best characterized as mental illness.

        As for the “LGBT” thing, I see no reason why libertarianism needs to revolve around that stuff anymore than it needs to revolve around Mormons, Scientologists, Tennessee snake handlers, or any other exotic fringe group with a history of outgroup status.

        It is for these latter reasons that I am a persona non grata at C4SS, lol.

        • I can’t wait to see the calculations for “race and class reparations”. If they’re of the same quality as the rest of Carson’s economics, they will be somewhere in the arithemetic of La La Land.

            • I should probably add that I am not any kind of universalist. I accept that in libertarian/anarchist societies there will be communities, institutions, economic systems, cultural values, regions, provinces, and probably entire nations whose way of doing things is different from my own.

              What I am trying to do with projects like AttacktheSystem.Com is create what amounts to a “third wave” of anarchist movements that moves past both the classical proletarian orientation of the “black and red” anarchists and the New Left/neo-Marxist orientation of most contemporary anarchists. Instead, I’m trying to move anarchist towards decentralized pluralism of the kind advocated by thinkers like John Zube or the anti-universalism of the national-anarchists. For instance, I very much support Libertarian Alliance and I support the Bookchinites of the PKK, even thought the political, cultural, and economic orientation of the two groups is very different. I’m interested in anti-state thinkers from Rand to Gandhi. My associates and I a trying to create a strategic paradigm that allows for anti-statists, anarchists, libertarians, decentralists, and anti-authoritarians to achieve real world political influence in spite of their vast differences, and to advocate for institutional and geopolitical arrangement where different factions might achieve some actual success and self-determination.

              I’m also personally interested in exploring the outer fringes of anarchistic philosophy like that of Max Stirner, Nietzsche, or Ernst Junger.

              • My major problem Keith is that I don’t think any form of separatism or communitarianism is going to work. The problem with any proposed alternative to the [current dispensation] is actually getting the chance to implement it. And since the managerial state exists, it is not going to allow any communities with significantly different values to exist. Its whole basis is evangelical; it is a missionary state (one day I will write a book about the State and call it The Missionary Imposition. lol). It actively seeks out any dissent, stifles any counterculture, and actively spreads itself to foreign lands as well. The Proggies learned a long while ago that what brings down Berlin Walls (or alcohol prohibition) is when the citizens under a tyranny can look beyond their State’s walls and see other people living without that imposition. So, their number one priority is preventing alternatives existing. (This is why, for instance, recently they coordinated smoking bans to descend in as many countries as possible simultaneously).

                So my problem is, how do you get to a stage where these people are going to let you set up a community that significantly diverges from PC? They won’t allow it. They will destroy it. They aren’t going to allow any move towards anarchism, or communities. It’s a chicken and egg; if we are ever in a position where such a thing can be done, we will have already won and won’t need to do it.

                It’s like the Anarcho Capitalists, endlessly onanistically polishing their models of the terrifying hyper-legalist utopia without any hope whatsoever of ever implementing it.

                Which is why I am simply interested in destroying the Proggies, at the national and international level. Broadly speaking, in fighting a war (either with guns, or culture) you can define it as what you are fighting for, or what you are fighting against. You can say you are fighting for the freedom of Britain, or against the Nazis. I define the current kulturkampf in the negative; I am more interested in fighting against the Proggies, than for liberty, because the thing that is preventing liberty is they, and if they are beaten then liberty is in with a chance. In some form. it won’t be any idealised form. It will be some rough, compromised state which has more liberty than we have now. That will do.

                I actually am an optimist; I believe that they can be beaten. I think it could have been done a long time ago, and a tragic golden opportunity was missed in the 1970s. They have in my view not been beaten previously because nobody has correctly recognised who the enemy are and what the enemy are. Which is why I spend most of my time here talking about who they are and what they are. Although I probably need something snappier and less likely to offend than “degenerate bourgeois protestantism colonised by Jewish Marxists”.

  15. The terms “left” and “right” have been used to mean so many different things that they are (politically) essentially meaningless – I should not use the terms, but I do (out of habit – and laziness).

    What I actually care about is whether or not someone supports private property – whether they support someone (no matter how rich) to use his property without attacking (not “harming” – that is much too vague Mr Mill) others – of course there are tort issues about pollution from one’s person’s (or organisation’s) property damaging the property (for example the air or water supply) of another person or organisation – but this does NOT mean (for example) that one business bankrupting another (“harming” them) by charging lower prices or offering better quality products is a concern of the state (and economic matters, free trade, IS a matter of the basic principle of liberty Mr Mill), nor does someone “parading their disapproval” of someone else by turning their back on them constitute an aggression (so sorry Mr Mill, if people want to turn their backs on you and Mrs Taylor you can NOT legitimately say that this is an aggression against you because they are “parading their disapproval”).

    I oppose the Marxist plan of looting and murdering – but I also oppose the “German form of socialism” where people and private associations are left nominal “owners” of XYZ but the state tells them what to do (see Mises “Nation, State and Economy” about German “War Socialism” during the First World War and how it differed from, say, the economic policies of France in the same war – or Mises’ “Omnipotent Government” or Hayek’s “The Road To Serfdom” about the Italian Fascists and the German National Socialists”).

    To claim that the Fascists and Nazis ruled in the interests of the “capitalists” is an absurd lie – a lie invented by the Soviet NKVD in the interwar period and spread to stooges (Hollywood and the rest of the “usual suspects”).

    It is also absurd to claim that the New Deal regime (with it savage taxes and random changes of regulations – crippling the investment of most of even the largest companies) ruled in the interests of “the capitalists” – nor did Woodrow Wilson or “Teddy” Roosevelt do so (any more than David Lloyd-George did in Britain).

    People who claim that these governments ruled in the interests of “capital” rule themselves out of further discussion.

    But it is more than this…….

    Either one believes in private property rights (that a business is as much private property as a home) or one does not.

    That means no “common carriers” or “public accommodations” in law – or all the rest of the late Roman idea that business means “public” and “public” means STATE.

    So if a hotel owner (or a shop) owner wants to keep off their property (not employ me – or trade with me) because I am white (or because I am bald, or fat, or part Jewish) that is….


    So much for “moderate” P.C. – such as “anti discrimination laws”.

    They have no place in the free society (in civil society) – period.

  16. Keith Preston – I wrote a comment on the (experimental) assumption that you were NOT guilty, and you spit in my face in reply. Falsely claiming that I called you a “commie” and a Social Justice supporter – something I went to great lengths NOT to do.

    Well “no good deed goes unpunished” so I should have expected your vile response – I will not bother to give you the benefit of the doubt in future (thus learning from my mistake in treating as if you were a human being).

    As for “feminists” – the way to tell whether one is a good or bad is the same way as one tells if anyone else is good or bad in terms of political philosophy.

    One tries to find out whether or not they sincerely support large scale private property rights – against (for example) “anti discrimination regulations” AND mob violence and intimidation (from “Community Organisers” and the like).

    For example does the “feminist” sincerely admire the life and work of Jon Huntsman (senior). If they do they are likely to be O.K. – if not then they are definitely not O.K.

    The same rule for “feminists” as for anyone else.

    By the way – I note your false (dishonest) definitions (or de facto definitions) of such terms as “Social Justice” – in reality the doctrine that all income and wealth is rightly the property of the collective (“the state”, “the people” – whatever term is used) and should be “distributed” according to some principle of “fairness”.

  17. Pingback: The Fight is a Global Fight « Attack the System

  18. A snide response on Mr Huntsman (senior), Keith – the sort of snide response I have come to expect from you. As if people can not use google and other search engines, or look up people on wikipedia (if they really do not know).

    As for “I have no idea what you’re talking about” – that is a direct falsehood on your part, as reading the threat shows.

    Still I repeat – someone who calls themselves a feminist should be judged on exactly the same basis (in terms of political philosophy) as anyone else. Do they support private property (including large scale private property – so called “capitalists”) against both government regulations (such as “anti discrimination” regulations – which are bases on false doctrine of late Roman Imperial Law that business enterprises are “public” and that “public” means state……..) AND mob violence and intimidation (for example that created by Saul Alinsky style “Community Organisers”).

    The followers of the Black Flag (who loot and destroy in the name of “the people”) being no different (in basic principle) from the followers of the Red Flag (who loot and destroy in the name of “the state”).

    I am not interested (in terms of political matters) whether someone is a man or a woman (any more than I am interested in what colour they are) – I am interested in whether or not they are threat to civil (non aggression) rights of private property – including large scale private property.

    Everything else is (politically) fundamentally irrelevant – and all people should be judged (in political matters) by exactly the same standard.

    • Here’s how I look at the political economy of a modern industrial society: I’d make a comparison to the pre-modern world. The modern state is analogous to the absolute monarchy, and the public sector bureaucracy to the king’s minions. The corporate/banking class is analogous to the feudal aristocracy (i.e. either inherited economic privilege or the achievement of such through a combination of commercial and political means). The media and academia are analogous to the Church as the primary purveyors of ideas that create the dominant ideology of the wider society. Business and financial interests are just as much a part of the establishment as these other institutions. A wide spectrum of commercial interests are heavily intertwined with the state. Here in the U.S. we call that “public-private partnerships.” Those with economic power (yes, there is such a thing) have the means with which to influence political outcomes as even a cursory look at politics at every level in the US will demonstrate, from Halliburton, Boeing, and Goldman-Sachs at the national level, to real estate interests seeking to inflate property values through zoning laws at the local level.

  19. Pingback: My Positions on Economic Questions « Attack the System

  20. I must admit to being completely lost as to why Feminists should be particularly interested in the former Governer of Utah and failed Republican presidential nomination candidate as well. So far as I can recall, he was a centrist denounced as a RINO. That’s all I remember of him really.

  21. Ian please do not be flippant – I have said “senior” many times in the thread. and you have read me mentioning the man (as an example) many times in many threads. He is one of my standard examples of an industrialist (like my example of Joshua Wedgewood in the 18th century). No one could plausibly have made the mistake of thinking I meant the politician.

    You sometimes say that I am too quick to assume that people do not mean what they say. But there is a good reason that I am like that – and comments such as your last one (although YES I know you were just joking) illustrates why I often do not take comments (and posts) at face value.

  22. Ah, okay. I had no idea he had a father. Well, obviously he had a father, but I’d never heard of him. I seriously doubt that he is much discussed in Womens’ Studies departments.

    Anyway, Feminism is a major plank of the Progressives/Post-Marxists/Whoever, so I doubt any Feminist would admire an industrialist.

  23. I know who Jon Huntsman, Sr. is thanks to Paul’s promptings in previous discussions. But most people wouldn’t. As a businessman, he’s just not that famous. He’s not a celebrity businessman like Donald Trump. His son was a go nowhere minor presidential candidate (and it’s not like Americans are all that politically informed). Based on how his Wikipedia entry describes him, Huntsman, Sr. sounds like a good guy.

  24. I think you are being a bit unfair there Ian – there are libertarian (real libertarian) feminists. There may not be many of them – but do not end up like ME (condemning all of a group because you have bad experiences with so of a group). If a woman says she is a feminist and opposes “anti discrimination” regulations AND opposes mob violence and intimidation And it turns out the women is a great admirer of the achievements of industrialists and ranchers and people who have built up retail chains and in way wants to rob or murder them. Am I to say the following……

    “You can not be a feminist – because feminists are evil and you are not evil?” – That does not sound right – although…….. (and here is the big confession) even after reading various books and talking to people over the years, I am still not quite sure what the definition of the word “feminist” is – it is all a bit fuzzy to me.

    Keith Preston – what you write about Jon Huntsman is good as far as it goes, but it misses the point (the building up of a large scale enterprise – and that this is a good thing to do). It is true that Mr Huntsman uses his profits for his anti cancer crusade (just as Mr Wedgewood used his for his anti slavery crusade – thus earning the hatred of George Whitfield, whose sermons against the evil luxury of Wegewood china were really motivated by their opposed positions on slavery, Mr Whitfield having helped to bring slavery to Georgia against the clear written ban on slavery by the founder of the Colony). It would not have mattered if Mr Huntsman had not spent a Dollar on cancer fighting – the building up of the business was a good thing in-its-self.

    On your other comment……

    It is households (not normally house building companies) who favour zoning laws.

    If the house building companies had their way then LA (and so on) would be like Houston (which does not have zoning laws) and it is not.

    The media (and the EDUCATION SYSTEM) do indeed dominate official ideas. However these official ideas (whether they are history lectures at Harvard or entertainment cartoons on television) are nearly all down-with-the-corporations, the-rich-are-evil stuff.

    As for government spending – the vast majority of it (as I have already pointed out to you) does not go to Halliburton and co (it goes to the Welfare State – the education, health care, and income support – pensions and so on).

    However, you may have a point about “Feudal Aristocracy” – but not the point you think you have.

    In England the landed aristocracy did not really come over with William the Bastard – those people mostly went bankrupt (or dead) centuries ago. Even when the names are the same it is because other people changed their names – or because they married into wealthy merchant families, or even peasant families (even if it was the case of the daughter marrying – someone the husband wound up with the daughters aristocratic name, which is what he was paying for). There are some real genuine ones – but not many.

    And there are (or were when I was young) two Anglo Saxon landed families (that somehow got over looked in all the blood soaked chaos of 1066 and all that). One went bankrupt recently trying to turn their estate into an amusement park (now there is a business I know – and I would have told them not to touch it with a barge pole). Survived invasion, war, plague, more plague (and …….) and go bust because you wanted to turn your estate into an amusement park…… still inheritance tax (that destroyer of so many family estates and NON landed family enterprises also) may have made them desperate. And it is industry as well as land – the German family owned manufacturing enterprises are due to (at least up till recently) less savage in Germany.

    Now there is something for “anti corporate” people – oppose the inheritance tax! And the Capital Gains Tax.

    If anything hits family owned enterprises it is inheritance tax, and if anything hands the shares of corporations to “institutional” investors (such as Pension Funds) not actual individuals – it is Capital Gains Tax.

    The idea (spread by the Westminster Review crowd) that estates were kept together by entails and so on is largely (in the end) B.S. – if people could not pay their way, creditors found some way or other to get their hands on the land.

    Estates either flourished or declined dependent on ECONOMIC factors – if it made economic sense to keep the estate together it was (although often under new ownership – even if Mr Smith or Mr Jones suddenly got French sounding names from somewhere – or made them up). Even formal titles were not that hard to get – in Scotland one did not even have to bother (as, under old Scots Law – buying an estate AUTOMATICALLY gave you a title, whether the King wanted it or not).

    And it was the same in the Middle Ages.

    The archive of the Paston family – how a peasant family reinvented themselves (over time) as aristocrats is a classic medieval case study (with even the King getting in on the act at the end – the fake “ancient nobility” claim).

    Alan MacFarlaine (“The Origins of English Individualism”) and M.M. Poston (“Medieval Economy and Society”) show that even in the late Middle Ages farming was a cash money business – and the size of farms (and estates) was determined by economic factors.

    Sean Gabb knows all this – he is from Kent (actually he still lives in Kent – just a different bit).

    There was never Serfdom in Kent (even before the Black Death broke serfdom in the areas of the country that did have it) – and in spite of Anglo Saxon land law (which Kent had up to the 1920s – yes the 20th century) there were big farms in Kent (where the economic conditions made that sensible).

    There was no vast difference (even in the 1400s) between “Anglo Saxon Law” Kent and “Norman Yoke” Sussex next door. Where large scale farming was sensible it was done – where it was not sensible it was not done. People try things – and if they fail they do not try them anymore (or they are not around to try them any more).

    Ditto with industry.

    Industrialists in the 1700s were not successful because of “state intervention” – and an industrialist who relies on the state now is a fool (the state being a “partner” given to treachery).

    It makes more sense to trust the CUSTOMERS – if you provide a good quality good or service (something that people really want) at a cheap price – then the customers will not let you down (IF one manages to get to them).

    For example I happened to go into a shop today which had stuff (at a cheap price) that I wanted – but I did not know that when I want in(and I have walked past the place many times over the years without going in) – I went in on a whim (with no plan), because there was no clear indication in the windows of the shop what the place actually sold (and that is dumb – marketing is important, one can not rely on customers having ESP). I have actually bought the same things (at a higher price) in other shops in the town, shops that bothered to make it obvious what they sold.

    Still anyways……..

    The size of an enterprise (farm, ranch, manufacturing, retail – whatever) it is not normally the result of some evil statist conspiracy – it is normally economic factors.

    The stuff that Ian (rightly) bangs on about.

  25. John Pate – the CIA subsidised “Encounter” magazine during the Cold War (and they did a good job – it was a good magazine) during the Cold War.

    However, if you maintain that the CIA “took over” (controlled) the entire American media during the Cold War then you must hold, for example, that the CIA supported the “mainstream” media campaign to UNDERMINE and DEFEAT the United States during (for example) the Vietnam War. There are exceptions (for example the John Wayne film “The Green Berets”) – but the overwhelming majority of the msm (both news, from “Uncle Walter” down, and entertainment shows) was basically anti American (indeed anti Western) propaganda and disinformation. Although that pathetic crook “LBJ” did his best to defeat himself (due to utter lack of understanding of military matters – and a lack of knowledge of what Communists even are, “what does Ho want” said President Johnson, repeatedly, not understanding that the answer was very simple – the West “capitalism” EXTERMINATED, that is what Ho, and all Reds, “want”).

    And (domestically) the position of the msm (for example the New York Times and the L.A. Times) that such things as the LA. riots of 1965 should be REWARDED by even more welfare and “civil rights” stuff. Actually that it is not impossible that the CIA did support this domestic policy view (as the CIA, contrary to Hollywood mythology, is NOT a “right wing” organisation), but the media would have supported a leftist policy (at home and abroad) regardless of the opinion of CIA (which has always been divided into opposed factions anyway).

    This is because the “mainstream media” (including the entertainment media) reflects the EDUCATION SYSTEM – which is (and has been for a very long time) dominated by the left (both the Marxist left and the NON Marxist left).

    People who sincerely think (not pretend to think – actually sincerely think) that the media (news or entertainment media) or the education system (schools and universities) are generally “pro capitalist” or “pro capitalists” are nuts, stark-raving-bonkers.

    Ditto people who think (who really think – not those who just pretend to think) that wars (such as Korea, Vietnam – and so on) are for fought for the benefit of “big business”.

  26. Turning away from people who seem to think that CIA operations to prevent the Communists taking over France and Italy after World War II were a bad thing, or that the United States armed forces should not have been used in defence of Korea…….

    Keith Preston – after your previous “link fests” (linking to people, such as C. Wright Mills [the pal of the Frankfurt School Marxists] who play absurd “economic power” propaganda games – AND your link to the totally FALSE claim that most American government spending is not on the Welfare State. for most American government spending IS INDEED on the Welfare State) – I am hardly likely to follow any more of your links.

    There is no point in following a link that leads to nonsense – and your previous links have led to nonsense. “Fool me once shame on you – fool me twice [or three times] shame on ME”, so (no) I will not be following any more of your links.

    Besides if I wanted to know more about the good side of Catholic “Social Teaching” on economic maters I could get down Thomas Woods work from the shelf.

  27. More generally…..

    I think the difference (on the interpretation of the world) can be shown by the following example…..

    Government security (and other) regulations have the effect of delaying air travel – thus meaning that people spend more time in airports. So the profits of W.H. Smith’s (which has shops in airports and railway stations) go up – because people (who are there for hours) buy stuff in their shops.

    The position of the “Libertarian Left” would appear to be that the security (and other) regulations are there because of the power of W.H. Smith “corporation” , and that this enterprise (a chain store of newsagents and book sellers) would not exist without such government regulations.

    Both these L.L. ideas are false – utterly false.

    As is the L.L position generally.

    This does not mean that the government regulations that mess up air travel should not be repealed (of course they should), or that “Network Rail” (the government owned “private” operation that controls the railways – and messes them up) should not be sold (really sold) – of course it should. But NOT for the reasons the L.Ls would support these moves.

  28. Just about the only time I agreed with John Major (the former British Prime Minister) was when he suggested that the government owned “British Rail” should be broken up and sold as private companies (real ones that would control the track and the trains, such as the old “Great Western” railway – not the “franchise” farce).

    However, he gave in to European Union pressure – as he normally did.

  29. Mr Pate I know better than to click on a link with the word “Spartacus” in it. As for education – it is dominated by the left (I know the use of the terms of “left” and “right” is lazy – but I have to be at work soon, I can not define every term).

    Even in Texas (which kept out of the Federal government “Common Core” thing and has an elected State School Board with a conservative majority) about 80% of schools were found to be teaching Social Justice stuff.

    As for the universities – the old Progressive desire to make “sons [and now daughters] as unlike their fathers as possible” continues. Even before the government subsidy of universities (via government backed “student loans” and so on) people such as Richard Ely and Woodrow Wilson were taking over (and logically so – after all this is a lot older than Karl Marx, it is the “spell of Plato”).

    A man works hard, he builds up a business – and gets the money to send his child to a elite university to become part of the great Western cultural tradition………

    And the young person is taught to hate and despise their father – everything he stands for and believes in, and everything he has achieved.

    Unless, of course, the father is a rich PROGRESSIVE – giving money (and verbal support) to all the fashionable “Radical Chic” causes – but someone who has built up a manufacturing business (or a ranch, or a mining business) from nothing, is not likely to be like that.

    Internet zillionaires tend to be different (even if their efforts to appear “hip” and “with it” look a bit forced at times) – although I sometimes wonder if they actually know what their “friends” think of I.P. – after all internet zillionaires often depend on I.P.

    The first Mr Rockefeller in the business (the old Baptist – not his elite university educated son and so on) really did produce better quality products (sometimes products he had invented) at cheaper prices than his rivals (and, by the way, saving the whales from extinction while he was at it). But does (say) Bill Gates produce better quality products at cheaper prices than his rivals? Or is his success based upon other factors?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s