Instead of using welfare as a relief measure to help families through rough times, our brilliant leaders created a self-perpetuating single motherhood mill. Now, women have no incentive to become partners in productive nuclear families, and men have no incentive to be husbands and fathers.

Welfare state purposefully created a “family structure” that excludes fathers and disinvests in boys

Keith Alexander says liberalism is the modern face of evil. We had the whole family thing figured out, through millenia of tradition. Our family structures existed long before recorded history. Liberals fucking destroyed something that goes back to our caveman times!

One must be very careful to find woman who actually appreciates the idea of a family and the man’s presence in it. They are out there. Hipster recommends church going girls, and he’s got a point.

It’s all about reproductive strategies, and government money has introduced incentives for demonically evil reproductive strategies. Like the serpent, the welfare check tempts the woman first.

Whole thing posted below, the tl/dr paragraphs here:

Back in the bad old days, women had two realistic choices when they got pregnant out of wedlock: marriage or adoption. The alternative – becoming a “single mom” – was not generally supported by parents, and for good reason — they usually ended up paying for it. But there has been a new development since then: a huge, comprehensive welfare state. Instead of having to buy groceries for the child grandma can now be added to WIC checks, use the EBT and sign up for a childcare voucher. Yes, states will actually pay grandmothers, if they take a couple remedial classes, to watch their daughters’ kids. With a little planning, mother, daughter and grandmother can all get a piece of the pie. Carl, for his part, is eligible for nothing, although as non-custodial father he may well be forced to reimburse the state for paying his child’s grandmother…

This puts the women’s willingness to eject Carl from the situation in some perspective. Why share with him if they don’t have to, and especially when on top of that he can be forced to pay them? Lily has zero financial incentive to create a traditional family, and her mother – a so-called Christian – has an incentive to discourage her from doing so. It all sounds very trashy, and unfortunately it is, but before we lay all the blame on Lily and her mother, we must remember that highly-educated people from “good families” came up with the legislation that created these incentives.

Full article:

The Myth of the Empowered Working Class Single Mother
by W.F. PRICE on JULY 16, 2014
I’ve been pulling the early morning shift with the baby for most of the last week so my wife can have some time to sleep, and then she in turn gives me time for sleep, but despite all that I didn’t get a full night of sleep for about two weeks. When there’s a newborn baby in the room, it’s pretty much impossible to get enough sleep, so to get needed rest one of us has to be awake with him in another room while the other sleeps. What it really comes down to is me giving him the bottle and performing associated de-gassing activities at least once while she’s sleeping so mom only has to do one or two night feedings instead of three or four — you’ve got to limit the bottle-feeding this early so the baby doesn’t get “nipple confusion.” Babies sleep a lot, but it’s a highly punctuated sleep. You’re lucky to get more than two straight hours of downtime between feeding times, and they can fuss for an hour or more with a very grating cry that I am certain nature made impossible to ignore.

The reason human newborns are so difficult is that they are highly inefficient little beings who must eat ravenously to grow. With oversized heads, humans require many calories merely to keep the brain growing that, in other animals, would go into rapid physical development. Humans are also born without the ability to consume all that much at a time, so regular feedings are necessary. My son gained exactly one ounce per day following discharge from the hospital, or nearly 1% of his body weight every day, all by consuming two-ounce portions of milk every one to three hours. Taking into account their considerable needs and helplessness, human infants are, without a doubt, the most high-maintenance young of any species on earth.

Despite the high emotion of the first couple days post-partum, we’ve already created the foundation for a working system. Cooperation makes an enormous difference, and really takes the edge off. For ordinary – i.e. not filthy rich – families, I suspect this has been the norm since the dawn of time. Sure, there may have been parents around to help at times, but mortality was so high until the last century that I doubt it was all that common. Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of cultures are patrilocal (the wife moves in with the husband’s tribe/family), and it’s unlikely that many new mothers had their own mothers or sisters around to help. So it was typically up to their husbands to ease the considerable burdens of motherhood.

However, even as I see the benefits of cooperative childrearing first-hand, I’ve been coming across a lot of articles about how working and lower middle class women are better off raising their kids “alone.” It’s a bit baffling, really, because taking care of a baby alone is a special kind of hell — even for women: you’re practically guaranteed sleep deprivation for months, there’s no way you could reasonably do so and hold a job, and even if you could, without at least an upper middle class salary daycare for infants is unaffordable ($20,000/year in Seattle last I checked).

You’d think that having someone around to help, even if he isn’t bringing in much income, would sure beat the alternative.

So what gives? Why are all these women going it alone? Actually, they aren’t. What is happening in the working class is the ghettoization of working Americans. We are seeing a family model that first arose in the northern urban black community become more and more the norm throughout society.

When I was growing up, I had some friends from the nearby projects. One kid, Ernest, lived down near the community swimming pool at Rainier Beach High School, so after swimming lessons we’d sometimes hang out in his neighborhood. I never recall seeing Ernest’s mother — it was his grandmother who took care of him. All told, she did a respectable job. He was a nice kid and, unlike most of the others stuck in that lousy situation, had a grandmother who actually bothered to teach him the basics (like how to swim). These little things add up to a lot over the years.

Over time, I found out that Ernest’s family arrangement was the norm in that neighborhood. I have no idea what most of the mothers were doing, but they were definitely not “empowered single mothers” by the commonly understood definition. They were hardly mothers at all. It was their mothers who were doing the heavy lifting.

Lest some say that this is a natural family arrangement for blacks dating back to Africa, it really isn’t. Africa may be different from Europe in important ways, but it never was, nor has it ever been, a matriarchal utopia. This state of affairs occurred after the great migration, and it was an urban phenomenon.

Instead of some natural matriarchal love-fest, it is more properly termed “multi-generational female dependency.” It’s an insidious kind of charity, because it renders men socially superfluous even as it encourages women to depend on the state for support, which creates an entire community that is a net drain on the surrounding society. Of course, there are incentives built in all along the way.

For example, if a woman gets section 8 housing after having a daughter, then raises her to adulthood on public assistance, when her daughter has a child she can stay with her mother (who will provide daycare) and collect welfare while she waits to get her own section 8 voucher. The daughter then gets her section 8 apartment, and the cycle repeats itself. I’m sure there are many families today entering their fourth generation of this lifestyle. For the men, the choices are significantly more limited. A lucky few may hit it big somehow, a large fraction will be arrested and incarcerated for something or other, and a minority will finally escape through the military or a reasonable job. Many will be reduced to the humiliating, demoralizing state of “mooching” off women who are state-supported. Naturally, this has incentivized favoritism toward female over male children amongst the underclass. Poor urban women invest more time and money in their daughters than their sons. This is sad but rational, because state assistance flows toward the female of the species — not the male.

When I see writers for Salon or some similar publication declaring that working class women are better off going it alone, I don’t think they quite understand what’s happening here. Instead of taking a hard look at the incentives, they tend to focus on the alleged shortcomings of the male, and rarely bother to get his side of the story (a glaring omission considering that the women in question deliberately chose to be impregnated by a particular man). They assume that it’s a matter of working class women earning more money and being better providers than the males. Perhaps most stupidly, they assume that a working class woman can be a single, go-it-alone mother of an infant and a productive worker:

Lily had grown up in a rural town, more than an hour from Kansas City, Mo. She was four months pregnant and not feeling well, and she was in tears. She was also not married, but that’s not what was upsetting her. The car that she needed to get to her two jobs in the city had broken down, and she had no other way to get to work. We asked whether her boyfriend, Carl, could help her. Lily frowned. She had recently broken up with Carl, she explained, because “I can support myself. I always have. I can support myself and our kid. I just can’t support myself, the kid, and him.”

Lily sounds positively heroic. How could she possibly handle all this responsibility? Does she plan to strap the baby to her breast while she stocks shelves at Walmart?

The next paragraph gives us a clue as to what’s really going on:

Was Lily just being stubborn? Unrealistic about what it actually takes to raise a baby? Soon after the baby was born we interviewed Lily again. A lawyer had helped Lily get a refund for the car. Her parents, devout Christians who supported both her decision to have the child and her decision not to marry Carl [editor: some “Christians”], were helping with child care. Carl was still not part of the picture, and Lily had no regrets. In her mind, Carl would get in the way of her ability to raise her child.

Aha! Lily’s mother is going to be taking care of the kid. This is exactly how it begins.

Back in the bad old days, women had two realistic choices when they got pregnant out of wedlock: marriage or adoption. The alternative – becoming a “single mom” – was not generally supported by parents, and for good reason — they usually ended up paying for it. But there has been a new development since then: a huge, comprehensive welfare state. Instead of having to buy groceries for the child grandma can now be added to WIC checks, use the EBT and sign up for a childcare voucher. Yes, states will actually pay grandmothers, if they take a couple remedial classes, to watch their daughters’ kids. With a little planning, mother, daughter and grandmother can all get a piece of the pie. Carl, for his part, is eligible for nothing, although as non-custodial father he may well be forced to reimburse the state for paying his child’s grandmother…

This puts the women’s willingness to eject Carl from the situation in some perspective. Why share with him if they don’t have to, and especially when on top of that he can be forced to pay them? Lily has zero financial incentive to create a traditional family, and her mother – a so-called Christian – has an incentive to discourage her from doing so. It all sounds very trashy, and unfortunately it is, but before we lay all the blame on Lily and her mother, we must remember that highly-educated people from “good families” came up with the legislation that created these incentives.

Instead of using welfare as a relief measure to help families through rough times, our brilliant leaders created a self-perpetuating single motherhood mill. Now, women have no incentive to become partners in productive nuclear families, and men have no incentive to be husbands and fathers.

What could go wrong?

Advertisements

About mindweapon

A mind weapon riding along with Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.https://en.gravatar.com/profiles/edit/#
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Instead of using welfare as a relief measure to help families through rough times, our brilliant leaders created a self-perpetuating single motherhood mill. Now, women have no incentive to become partners in productive nuclear families, and men have no incentive to be husbands and fathers.

  1. PA says:

    “Hipster recommends church going girls, and he’s got a point.”

    Vox Day has an upbeat advice: women are malleable. You don’t need to search for some elusive traditionalist girl; just find the most conservative girl in her own social circle and mold her to your thinking.

    • mindweapon says:

      Good point, PA. That’s so true, actually. Look how women that have an alpha go totally traditional, even if the alpha is anything but.

      • White-Musa says:

        The Man knew women better than anyone else…
        The psyche of the great masses is not receptive to anything that is half-hearted and weak.
        Like the woman, whose psychic state is determined less by grounds of abstract reason than by an indefinable emotional longing for a force which will complement her nature, and who, consequently, would rather bow to a strong man than dominate a weakling, likewise the masses love a commander more than a petitioner and feel inwardly more satisfied by a doctrine, tolerating no other beside itself, than by the granting of liberalistic freedom with which, as a rule, they can do little, and are prone to feel that they have been abandoned.
        II.YEARS OF STUDY AND SUFFERING IN VIENNA

      • mindweapon says:

        Thanks, White-Musa! Great quote.

        It seems like the first principle in life, to start implementing the moment you get out of bed, until you return to bed to go to sleep, is this:

        DON’T APOLOGIZE.

    • Wally says:

      “Women are malleable”

      If order for that to happen, the man and woman have to be in a relationship in the first place. And for a relationship to occur, the man has to be able to attract the women. The problem is, that many of the Celtic and Germanic men in the USA have become wimpy, asexual choir boys.

      Most women want young men that will stand up for themselves, that have a backbone. Many of these American protestant churches teach Celtic and Germanic boys to put women on a pedestal. Men raised like this are super sensitive to any criticism from women. After all, the woman is the moral and spiritual better of a man(according to these Protestant churches), so any criticism from women or feminist women must be correct! The result is lots of white men with no backbone who allow women to walk all over them. The women are disgusted with that type of man.

      Part of a woman’s attraction to a man is physical. A muscular fit body is sexually attractive to women. That’s what turns a woman on. And yet, all over the country, we see these caucasian SWPL guys with their skinny arms that are built like a 12 year old boy’s arm. These men will cover their arms with tattoos to try to take attention away from their lack of muscles. Or we see white guys walking around with fat and soft bodies. No wonder we see lots of young white women with non-white guys now days. A wimpy attitude and a wimpy body will turn women anyway.

      What is really disgusting is that these white guys were taught to have these unattractive characteristics by their own parents or religious groups. If these men had been taught properly about female attraction, then the situation between the sexes now days would be a lot different.

      • mindweapon says:

        Great point, Wally, and we are defnitely fighting that.

        I used resistance tubes attached at different levels to the mollyb columns in my basement, or with the door. I do gymnastic type exercises where I fall backward and catch myself with my outstretched arms, or fall forward and catch myself, again with outstretched arms. I put my arms to my sides, over my head, all the variations.

        Resistance tube exercises like this work your core at the same time as your limbs, and you get a gymnast type body. I want to get a situation where I can hang 100 resistance pound tubes from a ceiling and use them like the rings.

      • PureEvil cont. says:

        @Wally

        I don’t know that it is only the Protestant Church to blame for the snatch-worship of these kids. Almost every other WN/alt-right/HBD/etc guy gets extremely defensive of women and goes into hardcore ‘say anything’ style excuse mode. WNs are especially prone to this. Also, women will like whom they are directed to like by pop culture. As ‘game’ has proven time and again, muscularity is not really all that in terms of attraction as women are attracted to essentially silly or useless activities. DON’T GET ME WRONG, muscularity is tops and I would make it mandatory if I were in charge. It is that which should be and must be regardless of what women or anyone else says. Sorry Wally, I hope I did not offend.

      • mindweapon says:

        Less and less true these days, PureEvil cont. The PUA/manosphere has influenced us very strongly.

      • PureEvil cont. says:

        @MW

        I hope you’re correct MW. I don’t know how far-reaching the effects of the ‘sphere have been. Outside of the minority of thinkers/researchers/amateur social anthropologists I don’t notice much of that influence, but I may just not be attentive enough. Either way, muscularity is a man’s gift to himself, hinging it on the kitty will cause it to disappear once one is comfortable.

  2. Erin says:

    Grandmothers getting paid to provide childcare for their own grandchildren. I had absolutely no idea this was happening. This is so messed up. Is this common in White communities?

    • mindweapon says:

      Moreso with the mixers.

      They really warped family life. That’s why I HATE liberals with a passion. Think of all the children never born, or growing up in messed up households, thanks to liberals and the NWO that pays them.

  3. Jon says:

    A feature, not a bug (dysgenics for the lower-middle class, attraction of Third-World immigrants, client creation/perpetuation, government snooping/intrusion/intervention in peoples’ private lives are other objectives of the Western welfare systems).

  4. Anyone taking advice about women from me is nuts.

  5. PureEvil cont. says:

    I have no desire to marry, but if I hesitate too long there will be no un-tattooed women left. Quite the conundrum indeed.

    Women are malleable but you’ll be struggling against MTVcult. One man against a tidal wave of pure douche? I tell it can lead to an early grave. Then again, what must be done must be done as there are no alternatives. Good luck Gentlmen.

    • mindweapon says:

      Get a foreign white woman. Russian, Argentinian, South African. Help her escape her hell hole. Your US citizenship is worth 100k, might as well use it.

      • PureEvil cont. says:

        @MW

        Haha! Escape her hellhole and into ours! No, no, it ain’t that bad here, yet. I don’t know how far the tattooed-girl craze has gone in those countries, but it must be going on. I’ve considered Argentines and S.Africans (Afrikaners & Brits of course), but, I don’t really have the motivation to be married or even in a serious situation. Then, on the other hand I feel like I am supposed to. I’m sure I’ve just told the tale of a million guys! It is what it is.

    • KO says:

      Reconnect with the natural manly desire to have lots of children as part of asserting your being in the world. We’re very degraded by our economism, putting lifestyle ahead of healthy will. I know guys doing the big family thing. It is the way to go. Hang out with such men and become one. All best wishes!

      That is the real wn, not talk and theory or even direct action. Without it we are going nowhere.

      • PureEvil cont. says:

        How are they supporting the ‘big family thing?’

      • KO says:

        Working at jobs ranging from lawyer to delivery driver. You have to have a determined stay at home mom and the courage to rule a zoo without all the amenities.

      • PureEvil cont. says:

        “Working at jobs ranging from lawyer to delivery driver. You have to have a determined stay at home mom and the courage to rule a zoo without all the amenities.”

        Don’t know where they find the housewives, but it sounds like more difficulty than most guys and girls are wanting to put up with. It actually doesn’t sound too difficult, but you know what I mean, most just wouldn’t go for it. I want to say it wouldn’t matter to me, but I can’t say it with 100% certainty.

  6. I said go for Christian girls because they are the only ones that take marriage seriously. Not all that seriously, mind you, but if you’re looking for anything traditional you don’t really have a choice. As a very attractive 21 year old explained to me, it’s easy for a woman to submit to her husband in the context of religion. She’s not submitting to a fallible man, but to God himself, if by proxy. Plus, church girls know they aren’t supposed to slut it up; secular girls have been told the opposite so they really think it’s good.

    And always remember, if she’s not submissive, she’s not marriage material. The feminist gals that say they want an “egalitarian” relationship are just kinky and have to reclaim some of their power “outside of the bedroom.” Avoid. At. All. Costs.

    Unless, you know, you have a thing for spanking uppity redheads.

    • PureEvil cont. says:

      “Egalitarian” relationships always end up being female dominated. I’ve seen no other way it panned out.

    • FN says:

      I said go for Christian girls because they are the only ones that take marriage seriously. Not all that seriously, mind you, but if you’re looking for anything traditional you don’t really have a choice.

      Well that SOUNDS good in theory but doesn’t work out in reality.
      I would wager that less Muslimahs are whores than Christian girls. There are whores aplenty in both faiths but the submitters to God seem to be less slutty.
      That said it is the MAN who makes the WOMAN, She can be a liberal, atheist airhead but a MAN can make her into anything he likes. This is the fundamental reality,

      • PureEvil cont. says:

        True enough guy, but it is still one man’s influence up against the toxic blob of society, and they are vying for her attention to. This is much harder work than the majority of guys are willing to do (in addition to all the other things they have to do). We can’t survive with a tiny handful of guys going their own direction and moulding women, it has to somehow become 100s of millions.

  7. TabuLa Raza says:

    The theory of the State holds that the individual is State Property, to be used for State purposes.

    In 1914 the head us US Department of Education said: “It is asked- do the schools exist for the students, or do the students exist for the schools.. The answer is the latter.”

  8. hardscrabble farmer says:

    People spend too much time over analyzing this. If you choose to do something in life unless you happen to be one of the most gifted concert pianists or a 150 IQ chemistry savant, it’s best to select some type of occupation that has physicality inextricably tied to it. I’m pushing the traditional retirement age and physically I’m probably in the top 5% of males I encounter, not due to superb genetics or a gym membership but because I use my body hard every single day. My wife compliments me whenever we get physical (and I her) and that’s probably a lot more often than most PUA’s. A guy who goes to the gym 3-4 times a week and does x routine in the end only has the muscles and that much less in his bank account, I’ve got the muscles and when I’m walking around the property I can admire the 1,500 foot of 5′ high dry stacked stonewall I built, rock by rock.

    What most of these guys look for are variety- not that there’s anything wrong with that when you are young- but what they are missing is the massive build up of spiritual/emotional/historical whatever you want to call that energy that comes from staying with someone in a committed relationship that produces children and achievements beyond the capacity of a single individual.

    If you act like a man, if you demonstrate loyalty, responsibility, honesty, dependability, strength of character as well as body, you’d have to have made some kind of catastrophic error if the woman you choose DOESN’T fall in beside you and return all of the feminine equivalents to you. We are first and foremost biological entities designed for specific traits and behaviors in order to survive and flourish. If you keep encountering the kind of woman who is tatted up, whoring around, etc, you’d better realize that the problem isn’t the maladjusted female, it’s you- for selecting them.

    This notion that there are no more ‘good women’ out there is totally false. It’s like fishing in Love Canal and wondering why the fish are deformed. Get out of your artificial urban environment, stop chasing jobs that involve working inside, seated at a monitor. Stop pushing useless weights and build something. Live in the real world instead of the man made fake world and you’ll find a real woman who wants a real man to build an authentic family- your own tribe- and raise them to be healthy, flourishing, dynamic men and women of their own.

    Everything else is just a form of masturbation.

    • mindweapon says:

      Great comment, HF.

    • PureEvil cont. says:

      @hardscrabble farmer

      You seem like a pretty solid guy and I like most of what you said. But the whole ‘the world is fine-you are problem’ gambit is a bit shop worn by now. Most younger guys are no longer listening to gritty old men trying to motivate them by dressing them down anymore. And I suspect motivating others is not really the motive most of the time, but I digress.

      “If you act like a man, if you demonstrate loyalty, responsibility, honesty, dependability, strength of character as well as body,”

      -They’ve heard this from gandpa a million times, those qualities are great and should be mandatory, but they are rewarded with nothing at best. But they should be done anyway just because.

      “If you keep encountering the kind of woman who is tatted up, whoring around, etc, you’d better realize that the problem isn’t the maladjusted female, it’s you- for selecting them.”

      -No dice here either. What mythical world are they going to go to to select what they want? The % of tatted/maladjusted is simply to high now, it’s over. You have more demand than there is supply, and back in the day the old-timers used to do the supplying for the youth, now they just criticize.

      “This notion that there are no more ‘good women’ out there is totally false.”

      -Well it’s not literally true, but it’s more than 50%, conservatively.

      “Get out of your artificial urban environment,”

      -This is were jobs and women are sir.

      “stop chasing jobs that involve working inside, seated at a monitor.”

      -AMEN!

      “Live in the real world instead of the man made fake world and…..”

      -The real and the fake are now one. They’ve been merged and the results worse than ever. I hope your not implying that things will somehow auto-correct in one simply “lives in the real world”?

      “……..you’ll find a real woman who wants a real man to build an authentic family”

      So do all that and it’ll somehow happen? Don’t know about that one guy, maybe that was the case back int he day. Although you might get some 35 year olds worn out from the carousel who might flock to a productive guy. Look, I don’t have all the answers, but berating the kids (guys only of course, the pussy pass being in full effect), ain’t gonna cut it.

      • KO says:

        “back in the day the old-timers used to do the supplying for the youth”

        Excellent point. Friends and families need to be active matchmaking enterprises 24/7. That’s how everyone has always done it in all times and places, except now we believe in our common good sense to such a delusional degree we allow free random selection by the young. Lack of self-knowledge and lack of knowledge of reality are major hindrances to young people finding the right mates, and family and friends can help make up the deficit.

        Equally important, the common cultural goals are lacking to create shared expectations and needs, so that too has to be supplemented by outside help. Also important, you have to be honest about what you really want or no one can help you.

      • PureEvil cont. says:

        @KO

        Amen Sir, amen. The old-timers dropped the ball back when all these changes were taking place, and they still do nothing to help out and then they want to scold the youth-WTF? If you want the kids to get a woman so bad then find the ones you know and start throwing them at them, otherwise direct the commentary to the other old-timers. KO, great comment.

      • VRW says:

        ditto to both of you guys. a person could probably write a book explaining genuine matchmaking and the history and nuances of “arranged” marriage. kids deciding for themselves, as we have seen, is a waste of time, money, energy, and in the final analysis a total disaster

      • KO says:

        The scope of the revolution is hard for people to grasp. My 50’s parents doubtless thought I would completely absorb sound middle class WASP values by osmosis. One premise for that faith was probably correct — if you don’t get it by osmosis you’re not going to get it, because we don’t embrace values on the basis of argument, but on the basis of inspiration and need. They probably had no idea of the extent to which the all-pervasive 60’s liberationism blocked almost all possibility of osmosis, and made it impossible for one to conceive of oneself as, or to live as, a mere member of a generation that is merely one in a long series of generations going back into the past and ahead into the future. It never occurred to me, until lit was decades too late, that I should look for a mate who would help make that possible. Young people on this website and others are way ahead of the game just by being open to the idea that they belong to a people, a tradition, a race, a history, and are not just a liberated self-realization unit. Thus 50’s parents were not in a good position to help with matchmaking because they couldn’t grasp how pervasive the revolution was and how lost the young generation was.

      • mindweapon says:

        Great comment, KO. Thank you for your insight based on your life experience.

  9. ben tillman says:

    …we must remember that highly-educated people from “good families” came up with the legislation that created these incentives.>/I>

    Of course. And the consequences were fully intended. Mid-’60s we get (a) civil rights, fair housing, etc. to destroy the White community and (b) welfare to destroy the Black community (which had high rates of marriage and employment, low rates of incarceration and bastardy, etc., compared to today). What group of highly-educated people would want to destroy both the White and Black communities?

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s