Deep Hygiene

By now, we all know how important the washing of hands is. There are constant reminders of keeping our hands clean. Nobody can miss this important message. We are almost bombarded with that and as everybody wants to belong to the human family, we all follow this appeal.

Apparently, the whole world goes through a health crisis, and in order to be a responsible citizen, so we are told, we help to prevent the spread of a deadly disease as we wash our hands. All the sudden hand sanitizers have turned up in shops and at places where there is no water. Being naturally minded, I am skeptical of the chemicals they may contain, and prefer fresh water and natural soap instead.

And then there was the slogan, “keep your distance to save lives”. When I still could make sense of the reminder to wash hands, this one was nonsensical to me. As humans, we are social creatures, and social contact, even physical touch is vital for our survival.

To my surprise, most people went with that, kept their distance, saw any other human as a potential carrier of a deadly virus, and voluntary let themselves be locked up at home. No, they did it themselves. When it makes sense to quarantine sick people, it never has happened before that whole populations of healthy people voluntarily went into quarantine. Initially this was something new, quiet roads, less pollution in the air, time for the family or whatever you had not been attended to. If your job was not classified essential, as medical services, food retailer or the erection of 5G towers, you were at home.

I feel very lucky that I live in the country now, in the middle of nature. I have left the city where I probably would find it much harder to stick to the newly imposed rules. Soon this will be over, I thought, as businesses were effected. Who would have an interest in running down the economy? It was called a “pandemic”. Where were the dead bodies lining the streets, as it was the case at previous pandemics in the middle ages?

The fact that it happened world-wide made me suspicious. Where was any intelligent discussion about to pros and cons of shutting down all business and isolating people from each other? Where was any consideration for all the people who had built up their business on many years with hard work, only to see it being ruined by a draconian decision? Nobody talked about the level of anxiety that was raised and kept being high, nor the desperation that led people to suicide? Was this collateral damage that we simply had to accept, like the killing of innocent people in a war who happened to be at a wrong place at the wrong time?

Living on the land, I was not very much effected. Then I rang my ex-wife who now runs a little business in the middle of a German city. I was shocked when I heard her desperation. She was in tears, very obviously frightened for her very existence. In the background I heard her TV running. So I suggested to hear to shut it off. By the frantic tone that came across I could feel that this was only increasing her anxiety.

Also, it was not common to ask questions like, who was going to pay back the money the government handed out to compensate for the loss of business? What was happening to the tourism business, one of the major income sources in New Zealand? Or what does it mean for our country to increase the national debt? Will it hit future generations who have to repay? With compound interests, will it ever be able to be paid back? Or will our country stay enslaved to any international money institutions and stay dependent as are many third world countries?

A huge fear had been created about something, nobody could see. It did not matter that an increasing number of well educated specialists eventually argued that the cost of the lock-down was greater than the danger it was supposed to prevent. Media seemed to thrive on bad news and on keeping the population in suspense. I got the feeling of living in a thriller, with uncertainty how this all will be unfolding. What was coming next?

An Austrian psychiatrist Raphael Bonelli compared what was happening to a mental health condition. He diagnosed widespread obsessive compulsive disorder – the washing of hands -, and paranoid anxiety. He felt the same conditions existed as if we all were in a mental health asylum.

Yet, if you dared to question the predominant paradigm, you were excluded from the human family and labeled “corona denier”, “conspiracy-theorist” or – more recently – “Covidiot”. This happened to quite a few professionals who were shunned. People lost their jobs over this, if they even questioned the predominant narrative. There was simply no second opinion permitted. A situation was created, where only one story-line was allowed. Alternative options were suppressed and never appeared in the mainstream media and eventually also were heavily censored in social media. It became common that I saw an interesting article or video only to discover that it had been erased by the time that I came to watch it. What was there to hide?

When the message came out that told us not to trust any other information about this “health crisis” apart from the official government statements that sounded increasingly alarming, I was reminded of my childhood in post-war Germany. The end of pluralism of open discussion of different opinions reminded me of a totalitarian system. I grew up learning in school about Nazi Germany and later lived in West Berlin, a free city surrounded by totalitarian East Germany. So I was very sensitive. What I have always appreciated in the past in this country was the fact that on TV different statements were made and it was left to the viewer to make his own conclusions. There was no space for that now.

It did not take long, and it became known that the predictions that had been spread widely about overcrowded hospitals were not true. In my naivety, I thought, that soon it must be announced that the scare while initial based on realistic predictions had not lived up to the strong warning signs that were given. I was certain that the fear-mongering that had been going on would soon stop, and that we all could go back to normal. But no, any sign of liberalisation was quelled in its occurrence.

Numbers were massaged and reinterpreted so that the current narrative could be maintained. The Sweden example, where there was no wide-spread lock down, was discarded and the fact that their figures were not much different from any country that went through the draconian closing off was suppressed, numbers were falsified or interpreted in a way that looked much worse than it actually was. We were simply lied to. Whatever was not supposed to be was not going to be, no matter what the actual situation was. At the lack of reliable testing, anybody who was suspected to have caught the “deadly” virus was added to the ever increasing numbers of infected people. The fact that the biggest majority had recovered, as is normal after any flu break-out, was obscured. Until today, they are reaching frightening high figures by cumulative counting. A “new normal” had been reclaimed that we had to get used to.

Eventually, it was admitted that the computer model by the Imperial College in England, that was the basis of such drastic measures, had been wrong. Neil Ferguson, the person responsible for this huge error resigned. Yet still, no admission of any mistakes was made, by any of the scientists or political leaders that were responsible for the chaos and hardship inflicted on so many. Had the lying gone too far to be able to be retracted without a loss of face? Or was there another agenda that had not been revealed?

Soon, it became obvious that the washing of hands was not sufficient. We also needed our brains to be washed. Since the brain is hidden underneath a skull and not so easily accessible, the methods had to be refined to include advanced forms of propaganda or “marketing” as it is called now.

Brainwashing (also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and re-education) is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques. Brainwashing is said to reduce its subjects’ ability to think critically or independently, to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into their minds, as well as to change their attitudes, values and beliefs.

The term “brainwashing” was first used by Edward Hunter in 1950 to describe how the Chinese government appeared to make people cooperate with them. Research into the concept also looked at Nazi Germany, at some criminal cases in the United States, and at the actions of human traffickers. In the 1970s there was considerable scientific and legal debate, as well as media attention, about the possibility of brainwashing being a factor in the conversion of young people to some new religious movements, which were often referred to as cults at the time. The concept of brainwashing is sometimes involved in lawsuits, especially regarding child custody. It can also be a theme in science fiction and in political and corporate culture.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing)

While we all wash our hands, the washing of our brains cannot be done by ourselves. No, we don’t have to do it. It is done for us by our “caring” media and politicians in a never previously experienced accord. Everybody seems to agree with the current narrative, since nothing that differs from it is seriously being discussed. People increasingly become like robots. Politicians world-wide remind me of marionettes. There are a few exceptions, like the president of Tanzania or of Belarus. But they disappear silently into obscurity.

Our vulnerability is that we all have a need to belong. The simplest way to belong is to just go along with the widely spread paradigm. You don’t even question any of it. And anybody who does not keep to the assumed consensus is being shunned by the media and by other people. And what is worse, people are encouraged by our prime minister to spy on their neighbours and call a special police line to report them if they breach any of the silly laws, like keeping 2 metres distance, staying only in small groups of random numbers that seem to change with the occasion, or wearing stupid masks, that are more of a health hazard than useful. Serious scientists find they can’t keep the tiny virus contained. Masks obviously have more of a psychological purpose, a sign that you care enough about not infecting others. As it transpired recently, if you are healthy, you can’t even infect another person. If you are sick, it has been a common form of courtesy to not endanger others.

Apparently, telling on other people was not dobbing them in – something that is foreign to New Zealand culture – it was acting in solidarity for the well-being of all. This Orwellian double speak is what we were made to believe, since no opinions that differ from the current paradigm are seriously discussed. They are brushed aside as “unscientific” or “conspiracy theory”, without any arguments or proof, so that there is no need to seriously enter a dialogue or consider a different opinion.

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g. “downsizing” for layoffs and “servicing the target” for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language. The word is comparable to George Orwell‘s Newspeak and Doublethink as used in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four, though the term Doublespeak does not appear there. ….”

‘What is really important in the world of doublespeak is the ability to lie, whether knowingly or unconsciously, and to get away with it; and the ability to use lies and choose and shape facts selectively, blocking out those that don’t fit an agenda or program.’ (Herman, Edward S. (1992). Beyond Hypocrisy: Decoding the News in an Age of Propaganda : Including A Doublespeak Dictionary for the 1990s. Black Rose Books Ltd.) “ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak)

“William Lutz (Doublespeak) defines as doublespeak language designed to evade responsibility, make the unpleasant appear pleasant, the unattractive appear attractive, basically it’s language designed to mislead while pretending not to.” (DoubleSpeak – How to lie without lying. 16 August 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP07oyFTRXc)

It is a form of double speak when we are asked to be suspicious of one another and keep distance as a form of solidarity, and “be on the team of 5 million”.

What struck me was that what we were offered as “truth” was rarely backed up by any scientific data. It was simply called “science based” and we were asked to just believe it, because our government said so. Whereas so many scientists who questioned the predominant story were offering transparency and backed up their claims with real scientific data and revealed their sources. However, you didn’t have to examine those, since you were told that it was wrong and unscientific.

“People believe any lie that is big enough, told often enough and loud enough” (quoted from Nazi Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels according to Tom Sowell). It looks like the different world leaders have been on a marketing course and all learned their part well, as they more or less in unison announced an invisible script that based their hopes for more relaxed social structures on a vaccine to be soon released that would combat that deadly disease. This is all hear-say, a belief that is not backed by scientific scrutiny. Until today, it has never been proven that some vaccines really work without – sometimes severe – side effects. Often the result of vaccination is worse than the disease it is supposed to prevent. The danger outweighs the benefit.

Each year, thousands of people die of the common flu. Until today, no effective vaccine had been found. Such an undertaking seems impossible, since the millions of possible flu viruses mutate each year and change their appearance. It might be a lucrative prospect for the vaccine producing companies but it is not a sensible measure to improve health.

And then, there had been other “health crises” in the past, like the “Swine flu”, “bird flu” and other respirator condition, that did not live up to their dire predictions. What is different now is that almost all the media are in line. It appears well planned. Can it be that media are all controlled and used for propaganda purpose in disguise of informing? This is almost too bad to be true. Can there be such a vicious attempt to the freedom and well being of people world-wide? I can see the temptation to brush these thoughts off as sheer conspiracy theory. They are simply too unsettling. I would gladly join this if there were not all these inconsistencies. The predicted overcrowding of hospitals of infected people did not happen, not even in places with no draconian measures. There was virtually not much difference between countries that locked down and those that didn’t in terms of fatalities. The media of course did not report on this. Why were the figures interpreted in a way that suited the fear story?

But maybe, it is not about health in the first place. What is the hidden agenda?

Can it be about agenda 21 and 2030 promoted by the United Nations? These agendas are well worded and hide globalists’ ideas of more centralized powers. Is the aim the great reset? In a reset, the destruction of small business is planned and not an unfortunate side effect. Is it about population control? What is there to hide that it cannot be communicated in an open and fair fashion?

There is much going on in the background that we don’t know. Why are we treated like children rather than mature adults through censorship and the obvious lack of transparency? Who has an interest in a strongly biased media?

And then the government rushed laws through parliament – the “COVID 19 Recovery Bill” that would bring in the military and disregard the citizen’s privacy or could even force medical procedures on to them. No country has gone so far, as our one, where social experiments are common and a prime minister rules who has pledged her allegiance to the UN and WHO.

Luckily, by now, in most places the instructed house arrest has been lifted. Yet, the whole world lives in suspense. Will there be a second wave, as it has been predicted? We live in uncertain times, it seems now, more than ever.

It is difficult to live with this amount of uncertainty. So I understand that people develop beliefs that give them a base to stand on, that provides orientation and safety, a world-view. No wonder then that people tend to cling on to anything the government tells them. It feels unsafe to live in a world with no orientation. Then it is better to insist in absurd directives, even when it reduces personal freedom, .and to believe in a narrative, that does not make any logical sense. Overall it feels more comforting to believe that the government means well and that they honour their task to protect their people, that they do what they are meant to do for the people who elect them.

“A worldview or world-view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual’s or society’s knowledge and point of view. … Worldviews are often taken to operate at a conscious level, directly accessible to articulation and discussion, as opposed to existing at a deeper, pre-conscious level, such as the idea of “ground” in Gestalt psychology,…” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview)

A world-view is based on the accumulation of experience and ideas that lead as orientation. It is very fixed. If we hear something that is contrary to our world-view, we experience the tension of “cognitive dissonance” and generally ignore any facts, no matter how well they are proven, not to have to sacrifice the position that gives us a sense of something solid.

“In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, and is typically experienced as psychological stress when they participate in an action that goes against one or more of them. According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person’s belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein they try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency to function mentally in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable and is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance. They tend to make changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance or by avoiding circumstances and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance. Coping with the nuances of contradictory ideas or experiences is mentally stressful. It requires energy and effort to sit with those seemingly opposite things that all seem true. Festinger argued that some people would inevitably resolve dissonance by blindly believing whatever they wanted to believe.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

My problem here is that I simply can’t go with the mainstream story that is being promoted continuously. Even though, this would make life easier, I cannot simply ignore the many obvious inconsistencies. There have been too many lies being told. I can’t get over the question, why is there so much censorship, why is there no open discussion of differing opinions? Why is there only one side being publicly portrait? And why is there so much verbal violence and dismissal of an apparent minority?

As the general level of fear increases on a subtle level, it seems that a stronger polarization between people is happening. This erodes many friendships, divides neighbourhoods, splits families. It even has the potential to move from an innocent disagreement to a full blown conflict. Again, I am reminded of my past. At university, there was a course on prejudice, that examined how a negative opinion, as it was promoted about the Jews in Nazi Germany, could escalate and eventually lead to the mass murder of this group of people.

“Intense conflicts do not materialize out of thin air; they gradually become more intense. But as many people prefer to avoid conflict, they often overlook the first signals, only facing the situation when quite a lot has happened.” (Glasl, F. Confronting Conflict, p. 71)

Glasl describes 9 escalating stages of conflict. The first level is hardening, “the stances taken in the disagreement harden, ‘crystallize’ and clash. The opponents can no longer be completely open towards each other, they develop internal reservations. Communication suffers because each side increasingly sees events as through a filter, i.e. they do not recognize things around them or filter them out; they listen and see only selectively” (Glasl, p. 86).

This can quickly lead to the next level, debate and polemic. “As they cross the threshold to level 2, the opponents cease to listen to each other’s arguments. Being right and presenting one’s own position in a positive light has already become as important as the discussion of facts.” (ibid. p. 87). While at the beginning, there still was the possibility to hear one another, “now the opposing parties go to extremes in polarizing and cementing their stances. Through selective listening the weaknesses and mistakes in the opponents’ arguments are quickly identified and refuted. Thinking, feeling and will slide into extremes, and the extreme positions appear mutually exclusive.” (ibid. p. 88)

When talking no longer helps, as there is no longer the willingness to hear each other, we move into the next level of “actions, not words” where empathy is lost. Here “the conflict parties no longer believe that they can reach and convince each other by words, nor that the differences that exist can be resolved through an exchange of ideas. On the contrary – they only irritate each other more by talking!” (ibid. p.89)

Next, people develop stereotypical images. “Parties manoeuvre each other into negative roles and fight these roles” (ibid. p. 104) and “each conflict party creates a positive image of its own side, a negative one of the other side” (ibid. p. 93) and look for support from others, at the stage 4, images and coalitions.

This stage, I believe, has been reached in many instances. Here stereotypical terms are being used to insult each other, like “corona denier”, “covidiots” or “conspiracy theorist” on one hand, and being called “gullible”, “asleep” or “brainwashed” on the other.

The escalation of conflict does not stop there, as we have seen in historic events. It moves over 5 more stages from”loss of face” to “strategies of threat”, “limited destructive blows”, “fragmentation of the enemy” to finally “together into the abyss”, where there is no way back from the “destruction of the enemy even at the place of self destruction” (ibid. p. 105).

You might call me now a conspiracy theorist. And I could call you gullible, see you as one of the many people in trance who believe a narrative that may be reinforced by the media and ruthless politicians repeatedly, but does not hold true at closer examination. The predominant narrative is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. More and more scientists come to the fore and risk negative consequences and question the predominant theory. A group of front-line doctors recently shared their clinical experience of how a particular approved medication (HQC) would heal infected people, when used at the early stage, and even make a difference when their health condition were compromised.

How come that this news are not celebrated? Why does it need to be suppressed, the video censored, banned from the platforms of social media after it had been blatantly been ignored by mainstream media? Why are the practitioners, who were brave and risked their career, denounced for sharing their clinical observations? Why are they not being acknowledged as the heroes they are? The fact that a “scientific study” that apparently showed how dangerous this particular drug was had been retracted when proven to be false was withheld from the wider public. It simply couldn’t be true what didn’t fit the plan. For me, these inconsistencies are blatantly clear, and I find it difficult to understand that people won’t see that. But then, of course, this would cause a conflict with their worldview.

It is inconceivable for me that all the media people join in deceiving and misleading the wider public. This only makes sense when I learn that the majority of media are controlled by a handful of people that obviously agree with the overall plan. But why do so many journalists go along with it? I can only assume that they are frightened themselves as they distribute fear stories. People are terrified of losing their jobs and with it their material source of existence.

I am very alarmed about the prejudice being propagated with dismissive comments that lead to the exclusion of society for anyone who doesn’t go along with the predominant paradigm. History shows that what starts quite innocently can become the basis of mass murder, as it happened in Nazi Germany or Maoist China.

What effects me personally most is to loss of belonging. I simply can’t belief what doesn’t feel right, and with this I seem to forgo my right to exist as part of the human family that gladly wears masks, keeps social distance and is afraid of one another. Luckily, there are more and more people getting skeptical of the current public narrative and question it.

Especially in Germany, medical doctors have joined forces and formed groups that inform the wider public. They join a public movement, called “Querdenken” (thinking outside the box) that organizes public events and demonstrations. Lawyers follow, then teachers, journalists, and even police officers. Therefore I feel confident that this ground swell will take on momentum and eventually won’t be able to be stopped, despite all the smear campaigns, deliberate set-ups and lies being told in the media.

By now, I inform myself through social media rather than the conventional ones. Of course, not everything that is being said is true, neither with the public media, not the alternative media. If I hear the same information from different sources, it has more credibility for me. I learn to trust my gut feeling. And I like to focus on what gives me a good feeling and hope, on news that lift me up rather than scare me. Some informations are short-lived and are quickly censored. If something is being censored nowadays, it means that it contains some truth that is uncomfortable for the current powers and makes it therefore more interesting. Slowly, new platforms are being developed to reduce the control of certain media.

There is even a party now in New Zealand that developed from a people movement. Now I know what to vote for at the upcoming elections. This gives me a sense that am not on my own, and more and more people don’t swallow what they have been spoon fed. Many valid questions are now being asked. Who owns the media? In whose interest is it to keep people in suspense, afraid of one another, scared of another outbreak? Who benefits from it? What justifies cruelty of ruling that people can’t engage in normal interactions, like grieving together at a funeral or visiting a dying relative? Are you sure that their reasoning is based on real facts instead of made-up constructs?

The country that I loved when I first arrived here 37 years ago, no longer seems to exist. Back then, I noticed that basic humanness was more important than rules and regulations. The love and care for people was very much felt and experienced. Now, seeds of division and suspicion have pulled groups and families apart. People are placed into camps so you don’t have to engage with them. You can simply be written off as a “conspiracy theorist”, then no further investigation of your thoughts are necessary. You are being put into a box.

The shattering of a world view is very disorienting. This is the price I pay for staying open to learning. It feels like the bottom has been pulled from underneath my feet, as over the last 8 months big changes inside of me have happened. Yet, worse than being lied to from others would be to lie to myself.

I was a supporter or our young prime minister and thought that her intentions were good ones, for the well-being of the people. This I no longer can believe. Different to the trust in its citizen as it has been exercised in Sweden, here we are in danger of turning into a police state, where strict measures had to be taken to quell any resistance that is obviously being anticipated. I wished she would have been open to real expert advice or simply used more common sense. Why else do we need such a high level of control? Why do we need the possibility of martial laws to be implemented? The less trust there is the more control is being needed. Sweden was such a good example of a country where the leadership trusted its people. In turn, as I don’t feel trusted, I am suspicious of leaders who don’t trust. What are their hidden agendas?

Why was there a need to introduce a new liberal abortion law in a hurry to rush it through parliament in the first week of lock-down without any public consultation? Why have 5G capable towers been erected during lock-down? Why is there no scientific testing sought to establish their safety? Why is there no wide-spread public consultation?

My trust in any mainstream media has completely eroded. When it is obvious that they tell us lies to manipulate us, you can easily lose your trust in any accuracy of information. Instead of being informed, I am now convinced, we are being manipulated, and because of the incessant repetition, brainwashed.

I am finding my new orientation and notice that I am not on my own. I feel close to critical thinkers, who smell a rat and have the courage to speak out, while often risking their career. This gives me a sense of sanity. I have developed the habit to observe what people actually do, not so much what they say. Often the opposite is true. I have moved through a radical transformation and no longer see myself as left leaning or as green. Have they not recently undermined personal freedom? Instead, I appreciate good old values, like living in a democracy, with pluralism and the sanctity of personal freedom.

It feels like making mental somersaults, as I revise my word-view. As it is said in the “Course in Miracles”, there are two forces, the light and the dark, love or fear. One is life enhancing, the other is life-diminishing. One is unifying, the other divisive. I definitely choose life and freedom over control and the narrowing with control and anxiety.

My orientation at the moment is the question, “is it in line with nature and life enhancing?” Or ask the question that a friend once proposed, “what would love say to this?” My task is to stay in a loving space, despite my frustration and experienced hostility. If I want a better world where there is love and life valued, I need to live into that ideal.

I was heartened by a huge demonstration for freedom that took place two months ago in Berlin. The huge crowd focused on peace and love and lived into that, even when the police called the demonstration off before any of the speakers could say anything. People stood in silence for a minute, hand on their heart, before they peacefully disbanded. This sent a stronger message than if there would have been violence.

To want to eradicate a virus that is considered dangerous and is being transmitted through the air is an undertaking that we are prone to fail and are not going to ever achieve, according to professor Dolores Cahill. We need to find a way to live with viruses, they are part of life – some are useful and even necessary for life, like the bacteria in our guts. We need to arrange ourselves with them and find a way of coexistence. In a similar line, we need to learn to live with difference and not try to eradicate people with different opinions. In a democracy, we can trust that in a robust exchange of ideas we can move closer to the truth. No one can own the truth. We all have a part of it and when we share our individual truths, we move closer to the truth of the matter. It is like the parable of the 5 blind men describing an elephant. Each one of them describes it differently, depending on their position.

The task of our times, as Baha’u’llah puts it, is to learn to live with “unity in diversity”. As part of humanity, we are all unified. Diversity then is something that we should not be afraid of but nurture as the source of our unity.

Rudolf Jarosewitsch

1 October 2020

Leave a Reply

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

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