Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

June 15, 2015

Is it really 1914 all over again?

Filed under: cults,imperialism/globalization,oil,Russia — louisproyect @ 10:10 pm

This is the probably going to be the last reply to cult leader David North whose WSWS.org website warned readers that nuclear war was imminent because a Pentagon official named Robert Scher told Congress that the USA could “could go about and actually attack that missile where it is in Russia”, referring to any weapon that was in violation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed by the USA and the USSR in 1987. For North, the crux of the matter was establishing that the word “attack” came out of Scher’s mouth when it was not audible in the Youtube clip.

I never had any big issues with that word one way or the other since my analysis that was based on the objective economic conditions differed radically from that of the Socialist Equality Party and any number of groups or websites constantly warning about WWIII. (A search of WSWS.org reveals 3,350 articles containing the phrase “nuclear war” going back to 1998 when one titled “Risking a Nuclear War” about India and Pakistan can be found.)

The Armageddon brigade includes Global Research that reposted the WSWS.org article and the libertarian Antiwar.com website of Justin Raimondo, who like many others in the Rand Paul wing of the Republican Party lines up with the ultraleft on this matter as has been the case ever since the rightwing internationally has thrown in its lot with the Kremlin. Frankly, it is very difficult to distinguish between what Golden Dawn and North’s cult have said about Ukraine.

For Raimondo, David North, and other assorted hysterics along this ultraleft-libertarian-fascist axis, the danger of nuclear war exists because Washington is out of control and ready to make reckless decisions that will result in the deployment of nuclear missiles that will effectively end life on earth. Raimondo put this this way:

Yes, that’s how crazy the warlords of Washington are: in their demented calculus, nuclear war is just another “option.”

North said about the same thing in a July 2014 article titled “Are You Ready for Nuclear War” that had all the urgency of a Pentecostal tract urging believers to prepare for Armageddon. He likened it to events that took place a century earlier:

A hundred years ago this week, World War I was launched by small cabals of ministers, monarchs, and business interests throughout Europe, whose decision to risk everything on victory in war led to deaths numbering in the tens of millions. Today, similar forces are setting into motion a drive to a conflagration that could lead to the destruction of the planet.

Of course, it is possible to stoke the fears of the naïve reader when you summon up images of a sneak attack on Russia taking place in the next month or so as if the USA might follow Japan’s example from December 7th 1941.

That being said, one might feel a bit anxious if you interpreted Scher’s comments as a departure from American policy. As I stated (and still believe), the imperialist strategy is based on Mutually Assured Destruction. All nuclear powers consider their arms to be of a defensive nature since a first use would trigger a literal Armageddon that would rob the ruling classes of their privileges and status. It would be a suicidal act only conceivable in a scenario in which the stakes were enormous, such as the Cuban missile crisis that occurred during the depths of the Cold War but as I will point out later, the same conditions do not exist today.

But, more importantly, is the threat of a first strike something new? Did Scher introduce a new and much more dangerous element in American arms policy? A cursory search of Nexis reveals that a “first strike” has been part of imperialist calculations for the longest time.

While we associate such madness with the Reagan administration, Democrats have embraced it as well. In fact it goes back to Jimmy Carter, the “wimp” who Reagan replaced. The NY Times reported on August 6, 1980:

The Carter Administration has adopted a new strategy for nuclear war that gives priority to attacking military targets in the Soviet Union rather than to destroying cities and industrial complexes, Government officials said today.

The revised policy, the officials said, requires American forces to be able to undertake precise, limited nuclear strikes against military facilities in the Soviet Union, including missile bases and troop concentrations. They said it also calls for the United States to develop the capacity to threaten Soviet political leaders in their underground shelters in time of war.

In a nutshell, all Robert Scher was doing is reaffirming nuclear war policy that has existed for the past 35 years.

It continues with Bill Clinton. On November 24, 1998 the NY Times reported:

As NATO defines the new strategy it will unveil on its 50th anniversary next year, Germany’s new Government of Social Democrats and Greens has irked the United States by tentatively suggesting that NATO should renounce the possible first use of nuclear weapons.

The United States is firmly opposed to any change in the doctrine allowing first use of nuclear weapons, arguing that it proved an effective deterrent during the cold war and remains one today against new threats like chemical weapons.

Four years later it should not come as a big surprise that George W. Bush was totally committed to a “first use” policy as the Sydney Morning Herald reported on March 12, 2002:

A secret Pentagon report which reveals plans for a “first-strike” nuclear arsenal reverses decades of American military thinking which effectively defined nuclear warheads as weapons of last resort. It also indicates just how far the Bush Administration is prepared to go to entrench America’s role as the self-appointed global policeman that its military power affords. So dangerous are nuclear weapons to the very continuance of life on Earth that their existence has long been justified because of their power to “deter”, not to defeat. The “Nuclear Posture Review”, however, details plans to integrate nuclear and conventional weapons, develop “bunker-busting” nuclear warheads, and specifically target seven nations. Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria are listed with Russia, China and North Korea as possible nuclear targets.The complex moral, political and strategic questions raised in each of these cases might not trouble the United States, but it will surely unsettle even its closest allies.

One would not expect Obama, a big fan of the Reagan presidency, to retreat from a “first use” policy. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 6, 2010:

The Obama administration will release a new national nuclear-weapons strategy Tuesday that makes only modest changes to U.S. nuclear forces, leaving intact the longstanding U.S. threat to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear nations.

But the new policy will narrow potential U.S. nuclear targets, and for the first time makes explicit the goal of making deterrence of a nuclear strike the “sole objective” of U.S. nuclear weapons, a senior Obama administration official said Monday.

So if you are going to single out Robert Scher for war mongering, you at least need to understand that he was simply telling the Congressmen what they (and our ultraleftist friends) should have already known. Based on the analysis of David North and Justin Raimondo, we have been on the eve of destruction going on for at least 35 years and counting.

Now it just might be a coincidence but the warnings about WWIII tend to crop up whenever some former colony of the USSR gets on the wrong side of the Kremlin. Back in 2008 when Georgia and Russia were at war over the future of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, you could read exactly the same sorts of articles from the Armageddon brigade. Global Research invoked 1914 just as WSWS.org did in the above-cited article:

So far, each step in the Caucasus drama has put the conflict on a yet higher plane of danger. The next step will no longer be just about the Caucasus, or even Europe. In 1914 it was the “Guns of August” that initiated the Great War. This time the Guns of August 2008 could be the detonator of World War III and a nuclear holocaust of unspeakable horror.

Nobody talks about South Ossetia or Abkhazia today because Russia was able to achieve its goals without any big obstacles put in its path by NATO. Global Research insisted that “Ossetia has been an important strategic base near the Turkish and Iranian frontiers since the days of the czars” as if the geopolitical imperatives of the late 19th century remain intact.

Of course, if you were serious about the threat of imperialist war, you might want to take the trouble to analyze the world economy as Lenin did when he wrote “Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism”. If you are going to invoke 1914, there is after all an expectation that you can make the case that there are irreconcilable conflicts between the West and Russia that can only be resolved by a new world war.

I would only warn you that if you are looking for such an analysis on the WSWS.org website, you will be wasting your time. The tab “World Economy” will point you to articles about “How the richest one percent controls nearly half of global wealth”, etc. but nothing remotely resembling the sort of analysis Lenin carried out. I should add that there’s nothing wrong with writing denunciations of rich people but you don’t really need WSWS.org for that. Huffington Post does as good a job, if not better.

If you are serious about the conflict between the West and Russia having assumed the dimensions of 1914 (or 1940), you are obligated to back up your analysis with data. It would have to examine FDI flows in Eastern Europe and Russia and other economic trends that would lead to the conclusion that war is inevitable. If you want to understand why Japan launched a “first strike” against the US navy in Pearl Harbor, you might want to consult chapter four of Michael Zezima’s Saving Private Power: the hidden history of ‘The Good War’, where he writes:

The build-up to Pearl Harbor began two decades prior to the attack when, in 1922, the U.S., Britain, and Japan agreed that the Japanese navy would not be allowed more than 60 percent of the capital ship tonnage of the other two powers. As resentment grew within Japan over this decidedly inequitable agreement, that same year the United States Supreme Court declared Japanese immigrants ineligible for American citizenship. This decision was followed a year later by the Supreme Court upholding a California and Washington ruling denying Japanese the right to own property. A third judicial strike was dealt in 1924 with the Exclusion Act which virtually banned all Asian immigration. Finally, in 1930, when the London Naval Treaty denied Japan naval hegemony in its own waters, the groundwork for war (and “surprise attacks”) had been laid.

Upon realizing that Japan textiles were outproducing Lancashire mills, the British Empire (including India, Australia, Burma, etc.) raised the tariff on Japanese exports by 25 percent.

Within a few years, the Dutch followed suit in Indonesia and the West Indies, with the U.S. (in Cuba and the Philippines) not far behind. This led to the Japanese (correctly) claiming encirclement by the “ABCD” (American, British, Chinese, and Dutch) powers.

Such moves, combined with Japan’s expanding colonial designs, says Kenneth C. Davis, made “a clash between Japan and the United States and the other Western nations over control of the economy and resources of the Far East and Pacific…bound to happen.”

Is anything like this taking place between the USA and Russia? If so, it would probably come as surprise to the most powerful oil executives in the world. This is from the Kremlin, straight out of the horse’s mouth so to speak:

Screen shot 2015-06-15 at 5.49.26 PM

Screen shot 2015-06-15 at 5.47.52 PM

Shaking hands with the CEO of Exxon-Mobil

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, friends and colleagues,

I am very happy to welcome you to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. Without a doubt, energy has always been one of the key strategic sectors in the world economy and very much remains so today.

The first steps in this direction are already being taken. Rosneft and ExxonMobil have created a research and development centre for Arctic technologies. I will take this opportunity to also congratulate the winners of the Global Energy Prize awarded today. This year, it was awarded to Japanese scientist Akira Yoshino and Russian researcher Vladimir Fortov. I must note that basic research in the field of energy is what lays the foundation for the future of energy security in our nation and the world overall.

Today, several new documents were signed at this forum on partnerships between Rosneft and international oil and gas companies ExxonMobil, Statoil and Eni (I am happy to see our old friends here today and to greet them), as well as an agreement on technological partnership with General Electric and agreements on the principles of supplying LNG.

This is basically a new era in cooperation the essence of which, as regards our interaction with strategic partners, is to move away from just importing raw materials to establishing full-fledged cooperation in production and technology.

This was a speech given just two years ago. It is a good place to start if you are trying to understand whether we are 5 minutes away from nuclear Armageddon. The conflict in Ukraine, just as was the case in Georgia, raises tensions and leads to saber-rattling.

If you are serious about removing the threat of nuclear war, you have to create a world in which the Russian oligarchs and their pals at Exxon-Mobil do not have the power to exploit the working class and use violence to achieve their ends. Oil companies use their influence over governments in places like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria to make war on their own people and those in bordering territories, as Yemen would indicate.

Russia is just as capable of wreaking havoc on defenseless people as its support for the genocidal policies in Chechnya and Syria would point out. In order to have a world in which social justice and peace prevail, we have to build an international movement that is based on class struggle politics but that rejects the sectarianism that hobbles progress toward that end.

While I doubt that anybody who takes these goals seriously would waste their time joining a bizarre, conspiracy-minded cult-sect like the Social Equality Party, there is a need to understand how they operate and why they ultimately lead to political and personal ruin. My suggestion to David North and company is to continue writing articles that rail against economic inequality since someone here or there might need reminding of that. But for those of us trying to build revolutionary parties based on the kind of rigorous economic analysis that distinguished Lenin or Trotsky, another path awaits us.


  1. You forgot to mention the Larouche cult.They are also into the nuclear WWII scenario.

    Stop the Nuclear Holocaust!

    Comment by Bankotsu — June 16, 2015 @ 1:23 am

  2. Bankotsu is correct! As is the entire gist of this Proyect article — one of the best & most timely ever written in the history of this blog.

    For crissakes people. No wonder revolutionaries all over Asia consider Trotskyism a bulwark of reaction! They just can’t fathom the psychosis of the Western Left.

    And that really bothers me because an honest reading of Trotsky, the reading of the man and not interpretations by others, minus his party building strategies which have been proven flawed in Western Models, shows that after Lenin, he formed some of the the most powerful revolutionary contributions to humanity.

    It’s become hard to tell the general difference between the WSWS attitude towards this “alleged” New Cold War and the Teabagger sites like Prison Planet, as if David North & Alex Jones have something in common? It doesn’t help that sites like CounterPunch share some of the same ideas! No wonder guys like Ralph Nader sell bullshit books boasting the coming triumph of the Left/Right Alliance! Give me a fucking break. This so-called “Alliance” has about as much resilience & solidarity as does the petty-bourgeois entrepreneur with the flaming Anarchist poet under the jackboot of fascist militarism.

    Lets get something historically straight. The Official Cold War ran from 1948 to at least 1989 when the US knew it could bomb & test new weapons in Panama with impunity and then Iraq a couple years later. Never mind that Orwell from the start of 1948 flipped it onto its head implying 1984 would be the Totalitarian epoch from which humanity could never escape, that despite the relative bliss of the 50’s & 60’s.

    Yet nobody should forget the real Cold War ran from the 1918 Civil War until the day the Czarist flag was resurrected over the Kremlin, which took over over 70 years.

    Nobody should forget the firebombing of Dresden was to keep a workers’ state from the machine tools for a Red Army.

    Nobody should forget that the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki (terror attacks designed to catch kids going & coming from schools) weren’t so much about Japanese surrender (which officially took place 2 weeks earlier) & “saving American Lives” but about stopping the Red Army at the German Border & threatening the USSR.

    That was of course when the USSR was a State that had abolished private property, promoted Atheist education in its schools, assimilated 100 languages, had full employment, enforced affirmative action for women, factory workers & peasants in Universities, had free health care & free education through college, never mind factory workers paid half the rent that white collar workers did, plus kids kicked free loaves of bread around like footballs.

    Now that was the kind of State that drove nut case imbeciles like Harry Truman, the only US President in the 20th Century that wasn’t a millionaire upon entering office, to go literally insane over Mao and the Chinese Revolution, so much so that noted historians have documented how his aids practically had to strap him into a straight jacket, and that’s no shit. Just consult ex-Mayor of Tucson and noted UofA Poly Sci professor Tom Volgy and he will recount the story of how his mentor swore he was a personal Aid of Truman’s back when Truman lost his freaking mind.

    The next biggest American psycho was JFK who threatened Armageddon over a couple missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from the US, when JFK & Ike had already installed over 1000 nukes on the Turkish border with the USSR?

    No wonder the late great lawyer William Kunstler claimed that “the world was better off without the Kennedy brothers.”

    So whereas back during the REAL COLD WAR there was an income disparity in the USSR of 5 to 1 where in the USA it was more like 60 to 1 but NOW both decadent crony capitalist societies are approaching 1000 to 1 — yet now somehow class antagonisms are so deep that nuclear war is nigh!

    Yea right! How fucking absurd. That means the Left is ignorant of the fact that Putin supplies about 500,000 barrels of crude oil per month to fuel the Afghan War. Now if that were just at $100 a barrel that’s a shitload of cash but turns out the Pentagon winds of paying $500 per gallon of fuel which is like $5000 per barrel of crude which means Putin and Obama exchange, what is 500,000 times 5000? That’s like $25 billion a month! And you chumps thought you knew something about the world and how world war works!

    Well I got news for you all. When 2 capitalist countries exchange $25 billion worth of goods EVERY MONTH stolen outright from their own working class then you can bet the last thing they want to do is fuck that relationship up.

    On the contrary. They pinch themselves every fucking morning in disbelief they’re still getting away with the crime of the century!

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — June 16, 2015 @ 7:51 am

  3. Enough straw men in this article to frighten a murder of crows!

    The US corporations of course did big business with Nazi Germany, shook the hands of its top executives before embarking on all out war with them! And lets not talk about the Soviet-Nazi trade agreements signed just before all out war!

    Every major war has been preceded by a period of trade between the warring parties. It is the nature of the beast.

    Now at the moment we are still in the era of proxy war, the era of the US empire so we are some way off direct confrontation I would say.

    However, looking at some of the WSWS articles about Proyect, I have to say they have his card well marked.

    An outright apologist for imperialism, no doubt about it.

    And someone who denies clear factual evidence of growing tensions between Russia and the empire. To him it is all a conspiracy to hide their deep seated love for one another. Jesse Ventura, are you listening, get the team down to interview Proyect!

    Comment by Simon Provertier — June 16, 2015 @ 8:24 am

  4. Simon Says: “I’m a Fool!”

    Look Simon. There used to be a World pre-1990 that was roughly divided for 500 years into 2 camps. The North & the South. Hemispheres that is. From 1492 to say 1992. The North being white and rich with a relatively small population (Japan being the honorary white guys so rich & who had the distinction of never being truly invaded) and everybody below which are 70% of the planet, brown people, generally living in grinding poverty.

    For 500 years history was characterized by the North chopping offf the heads of the South whenever the Southerners protested their exploited conditions.

    That changed in 1917, when because of a peasant revolt, for 70 years the historic ambassadors of the South, the Slavs, which were historically the Slaves in Greek & Roman times, had an uprising that threatened to upset the 500 year Reich only because in 1917 the Slavs had an army big enough to threaten all of Europe so instead of beheading them like Haiti or the smaller uprisings & slave revolts — it took 70 years to crush the Russian Revolution, thanks in no small part to cats like Lenin & Trotsky & their pernicious ideology which took root amongst the toiling masses.of the South.

    That 70% used to want to emulate the Soviet model,whereby their basic needs were met by the State but they sacrificed the ability to jump onto soapboxes in the town’s square and preach whatever popped into their heads. That was called the 2nd World, that is, a life for the masses that wasn’t the attainable 1st World but was far better than the grinding poverty that characterized the 3rd World.

    Ever since then the North has been busy putting out that Southern fire but today finds allies like Putin doing it’s dirty work in Chechnya & Syria so that East & West meet eye to eye on the fundamentals of Class Rule.

    Comment by Karl Friedrich — June 16, 2015 @ 9:20 am

  5. I never said you were a fool!

    “East & West meet eye to eye on the fundamentals of Class Rule”

    This hasn’t stopped nations slaughtering each other in the past and it won’t in the future.

    I take the current hostility between the empire and Russia seriously, I do not believe it is part of some conspiratorial game.

    Comment by Simon Provertier — June 16, 2015 @ 10:47 am

  6. Louis, this is to take you up on your mention of “those of us trying to build revolutionary parties based on the kind of rigorous economic analysis that distinguished Lenin or Trotsky.” A post about WSWS is as good a place to start as any.

    Let me challenge the idea that a party can be based on a single economic analysis; that may be part of the false start that led to the shattering expressed in WSWS, LaRouche, and the many party-factions that actually make positive contributions.

    A party is based on a platform. Necessarily to promote a platform effectively, we have to invite people with different economic, philosophical, and historical analyses to participate. Shortly after Robespierre decreed a new state church in 1794, he fell victim to the political practice he had fostered. The Bolsheviks’ improvement was to refrain from using guillotines in enforcing atheist doctrine. It was not enough of an improvement. The collaboration of those who follow Lenin’s and Trotsky’s actual practice is weaker than either the WSWS or the LaRouche cult. That invites us to revisit the basic foundations on which we try to base the political instrument.

    Comment by dkeil — June 16, 2015 @ 3:58 pm

  7. The reason why WWIII is not happening, is simply because Russia has the capability of wiping out western cities off the face of the earth. If Western imperialism felt they had the technological upper hand that would allow for a Nuclear First Strike against Russia, they would at the very least consider it, and probably use it.

    The reason why western oil majors talk to Russia and her president is simply because they have no other choice. Russia’s oil reserves are vast, while the West’s have dwindled dangerously (expensive shale/tar sands production temporarily mask this horrific tendency for the West) Exxon Mobil has recently acquired vast drilling rights in the Russian Federation (far more than in any other country on the planet, including its native USA) as a way to remain relevant as an oil major.

    One of the main reasons behind the current conflict between Russia on the one hand, and the Imperialist West on the other, is that as the world’s oil & gas reserves run out, Russia will be gaining a relative advantage over the West as their own production of oil & gas grows larger as a % of the world’s total and her reserves become ever more valuable and essential for the world economy. For this reason, Russia must be brought down as soon as possible, or at least suffer a very serious setback, before the day arrives when the Russian stranglehold over global energy blows a Siberia-sized hole in the armor of Western imperialism.

    Moreover, with the West’s economic advantage eroding by the day (largely thanks to the world-historic progress achieved by the PRC) new vigor and a sense of unity and solidarity must be instilled in the now dangerously senile “western alliance” (remember that several EU countries have been dangerously flirting with Russia in recent years) in preparation for the battles to come (battles against Russia, China, Iran and the rest of the non-western world) for the traditional exploitative powers who now sense their colonial subjects are ripe to overthrow them.

    So, the main reasons behind the latest tensions and proxy wars between the West and Russia are extremely serious and may possibly (by design or by mistake, or by uncontrolled escalation) lead even to nuclear war.

    if you want to have a look at some economic figures, just take a look at the financial statements (as well as debt levels) of the US shale producers, or the whole junk bond issuance required to keep those corporations alive. Also have a look at the dwindling production curves (and concurrent exploding costs) from the North Sea (for all European countries involved) Russia, Iran, Iraq – along with Western ally, KSA (but for how long?) are the best endowed countries on the planet in terms of hydrocarbons, hence US foreign policy. It is a truism that the more the West barks and fumes and foams over a country, the more that country possesses vast energy reserves. Considering the anti-Russian hysteria of the past couple of years, then I think we can all imagine what is at play here.

    Comment by Stavros H — June 17, 2015 @ 3:27 pm

  8. As for you complaints over Russia’s (remember, not only a non-imperialist country, but in fact the most venerable and capable resistor to imperialism there is) conduct in Syria or Chechnya. I mean, how do you want Russia to fight the mercenaries of the CIA/MI6/Mossad? With harsh language?

    Comment by Stavros H — June 17, 2015 @ 3:35 pm

  9. Considering the anti-Russian hysteria of the past couple of years . . .we can all imagine what is at play here.

    This is a circular argument if ever there was one. What “hysteria”? Well, Proyect’s position (and that of nameless hordes of others) is wrong because it’s “hysterical” and it’s “hysterical” because it’s Proyect’s position (and that of the nameless hordes). This reminds me of the commentators who dismissed Ed Snowden because of his alleged “narcissism.” Evidence? Please–how dare you (you narcissist). Not one instance of actual “hysteria” is actually cited here, although a certain amount of it seems to be on display.

    In similar fashion, we get a very belligerent assertion that Proyect must be a fool because look–just as he said–MAD obtains; and furthermore, Western businessmen just as Proyect said are not talking to the Russians in order to cover up the secret war plot, but rather because they really have no choice.. Well, I mean–if the man is right, what further proof do you need that he’s wrong? Get my drift–eh? eh? See how it all coheres?

    At the end we get very weak attempt to tie it all together by alluding to the deep tensions over oil that (must or might? it isn’t clear) lead to nuclear war, and finally, a propos of nothing, we drag in the “hysteria” of anyone who criticizes any aspect of that People’s Glorious Hero, Putin.

    Of course a nuclear first strike by either side is possible–the terrible weapons are there, and they work, and either side could launch them first, and we should all be pushing very hard for total nuclear disarmament. But none of the actual reasons cited here makes a case that such an event is probable.That remains true whether or not “we can all imagine” some cheap sci-fi war of good and evil at the end of the world.

    It’s true that Russia’s hydrocarbon reserves are very,very great indeed, but if “we” want them, that is much more an incentive to deal with the Russians than to nuke them–which would only lead to their defeat if it destroyed the productive infrastructure and (shudder) “human capital” required to exploit said reserves in the first place. So it all gets back to the question of the peculiar insanity of American politicians–a very non-Marxist analysis, since it completely discounts objective class warfare in favor of a pyschological and moral pathology at the root of the activities of nations.

    It’s very much the mark of the pseudo-left in America (I mean the real pseudo-left, not just anyone who disagrees with David North) to be unable to see past the personal in political situations.

    Comment by Pete Glosser — June 17, 2015 @ 10:47 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: