Civilisation’s “Heroic Materialism”

Originally I posted this article on April 25, 2012. But now that I have been postulating that the One Ring of greed and power—that we might start calling “the Aryan Problem”—could be the main factor in the West’s darkest hour, I am moving it at the top of this blog.

Below, some excerpts of “Heroic Materialism,” the last chapter of Civilisation by Kenneth Clark. (For an introduction to these series, see here.) Ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages. Also, the headings don’t appear in the original text:

The westerners’ new god: Mammon

Imagine an immensely speeded up movie of Manhattan Island during the last hundred years. It would look less like a work of man than like some tremendous natural upheaval. It’s godless, it’s brutal, it’s violent—but one can’t laugh it off, because in the energy, strength of will and mental grasp that have gone to make New York, materialism has transcended itself. It took almost the same time to reach its present conditions as it did to complete the Gothic cathedrals. At which point a very obvious reflection crosses one’s mind: that the cathedrals were built to the glory of God, New York was built to the glory of mammon—money, gain, the new god of the nineteenth century. So many of the same human ingredients have gone into its construction that at a distance it does look rather like a celestial city. At a distance. Come closer and it’s not so good. Lots of squalor, and, in the luxury, something parasitical.


Blake’s Satan

One sees why heroic materialism is still linked with an uneasy conscience. The first large iron foundries like the Carron Works or Coalbrookdale, date from about 1780. The only people who saw through industrialism in those early days were the poets. Blake, as everybody knows, thought that mills were the work of Satan. ‘Oh Satan, my youngest born… thy work is Eternal death with Mills and Ovens and Cauldrons.’

The [slave] trade was prohibited in 1807, and as Wilberforce lay dying in 1835, slavery itself was abolished. One must regard this as a step forward for the human race, and be proud, I think, that it happened in England. But not too proud. The Victorians were very smug about it, and chose to avert their eyes from something almost equally horrible that was happening to their own countrymen.

In its early stages the Industrial Revolution was also a part of the Romantic movement. And here I may digress to say that painters had for long used iron foundries to heighten the imaginative impact of their work with what we call a romantic effect; and that they had introduced them into pictures as symbolising the mouth of hell. However, the influence of the Industrial Revolution on Romantic painters is a side issue, almost an impertinence, when compared to its influence on human life. I needn’t remind you of how cruelly it degraded and exploited a mass of people for sixty or seventy years.

What was destructive was size. After about 1790 to 1800 there appeared the large foundries and mills which dehumanised life. Long before Carlyle and Karl Marx, Wordsworth had described the arrival of a night shift ‘that turns the multitude of dizzy wheels, Men, maidens, youths, Mothers and little children, boys and girls, Perpetual sacrifice.’

The terrible truth is that the rise in population did nearly ruin us. It struck a blow at civilisation such as it hadn’t received since the barbarian invasions. First it produced the horrors of urban poverty. It must have seemed—may still seem—insoluble; yet this doesn’t excuse the callousness with which prosperous people ignored the conditions of life among the poor on which to a large extent their prosperity depended, and this in spite of the many detailed and eloquent descriptions that were available to them. I need mention only two—Engels’s Conditions of the Working Classes in England, written in 1844, and the novels written by Dickens between 1840 and 1855. Everybody read Dickens. But his terrible descriptions of poverty had very little practical effect: partly because the problem was too big; partly because politicians were held in the intellectual prison of classical economics.

The images that fit Dickens are by the French illustrator Gustave Doré. He was originally a humorist; but the sight of London sobered him. His drawings were done in the 1870s, after Dickens’s death. But one can see that things hadn’t changed much. Perhaps it took an outsider to see London as it really was.


Degenerate architecture

At the beginning of this series I said that I thought one could tell more about a civilisation from its architecture that from anything else it leaves behind. Painting and literature depend largely on unpredictable individuals. But architecture is to some extent a communal art. However, I must admit that the public buildings on the nineteenth century are often lacking in style and conviction; and I believe that this is because the strongest creative impulse of the time didn’t go into the town halls or country houses, but into what was then thought of as engineering. In fact, all modern New York started with the Brooklyn Bridge.

In this series I have followed the ups and downs of civilisation historically, trying to discover results as well as causes; well, obviously I can’t do that any longer. We have no idea where we are going, and sweeping, confident articles of the future seem to me, intellectually, the most disreputable of all forms of utterance. The scientists who are best qualified to talk have kept their moths shut.

The incomprehensibility of our new cosmos seems to me, ultimately, to be the reason for the chaos of modern art. I know next to nothing about science, but I’ve spent my life trying to learn about art, and I am completely baffled by what is taking place today. I sometimes like what I see, but when I read modern critics I realise that my preferences are merely accidental.

Western civilisation has been a series of rebirths. Surely this should give us confidence in ourselves. I said at the beginning that it is lack of confidence, more than anything else, that kills a civilisation. We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion, just as effectively as by bombs. Fifty years ago W.B. Yeats, who was more like a man of genius than anyone I have ever known, wrote a famous poem.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://chechar.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/civilisations-heroic-materialism/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

37 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. The [slave] trade was prohibited in 1807, and as Wilberforce lay dying in 1835, slavery itself was abolished. One must regard this as a step forward for the human race, and be proud, I think, that it happened in England. But not too proud. The Victorians were very smug about it, and chose to avert their eyes from something almost equally horrible that was happening to their own countrymen.

    You see? These Anglo-Saxons pitied the Neanderthalesque Negroes instead of the angelic Oliver Twists… What do you blame for this monstrous psychosis when the Jews had not taken over England’s media yet? I blame Christian axiology (inversion of values) and, especially, runaway capitalism.

    See the linked articles I have added these days at the sidebar under the heading “See how the One Ring (economics over race) may have been the main factor in the fall of Western civilizations”.

    • While Christianity exploited a weakness in our race, it is this weakness which is the problem. If we didn’t have this weakness, Christianity would never have taken root. It isn’t just altruism, otherwise we wouldn’t be overlooking our own people. To date, I don’t think I’ve heard a totally satisfactory explanation.

      I still see this inversion of values in people who are vehemently anti-christian (I have mentioned this before here) but they just can’t see it. For these people, it’s the evil White Christians (since Whites were 99.9% Christians at the time, it defaults to just White people) who persecuted the noble vibrant peaceful pagan little brown people. Sigh. They believe they have common cause with these non-whites, just like White Christians have ‘common cause’ with non-white Christians. It’s enough to almost make one scream in frustration.

      Christianity seems to be a minor problem in comparison to the damage done by runaway capitalism.

      • Part of that might just be how much easier it was to free slaves than fix the conditions of the working class.

        Capitalism is a big problem though. We’ve got materialists from top (the bourgeoisie) to bottom (the proletariat), and none of them are trustworthy. We need to put Homo Economicus out of power for good. We need caste-struggle.

    • “I still see this inversion of values in people who are vehemently anti-christian”

      Of course: in atheistic liberalism Christian axiology is paradoxically reinforced.

      “To date, I don’t think I’ve heard a totally satisfactory explanation.”

      Once values are inverted, the strong is considered the bad guy of the movie and the downtrodden the good guys.

      • I read all of your links. Very interesting, as always.

        But questions remain: Wasn’t Christianity what held the west together as it repelled mongol, Muslim, etc. invasions?

        Hasn’t the decline of whites belief in Christianity coincided with the ascendency of the Jew post world war 2?

        Has the white race really been in error for 2000 years? Haven’t we made Christianity into an Aryan religion in a sense?

      • Yes, in a sense. I don’t see it as black and white as those anti-Christians on VNN. Still, the Mongols destroyed the vagina gentium in Russia: the cradle of all Indo-European Aryans. Had Christianized Romans not miscegenated and destroyed their classical science and engineering wisdom, what happened to the womb of the white race could have been averted. Remember that Genghis died very opportunely; otherwise the Holocaust of whites in Russia could have happened in Western Europe as well. But I do blame more the Roman lust of wealth than Christianity.

      • The same with the Muslim invasions: a strong, non-miscegenated, pagan Greco-Roman world with thriving technology would have crushed them all. As to the rise of the Jews, even when Christianity was healthy look at what happened in New Spain and Portugal: the Iberians ruined their gene pool by marrying Blacks and Amerinds, sans Jews.

      • Whoops. It wasn’t Genghis who died very opportunely; it was Ogedei.

      • I thought I’d made a mistake, it’s been a while since I once studied the Mongolian empire, but yes, it was Genghis’ son and successor, Ogedei khan, who died suddenly, averting an invasion into the heart of Europe.

        After his death, everyone had to go back to the capital in Mongolia to discuss succession, and they never pushed as far into Europe again.

    • I’ve read you for some time now, and I can’t understand your beliefs towards Christianity. I’ve long been a Christian, culturally if not in faith. The church is an important part of the west, even if its practices must be discarded for the Aryan race to survive. Why don’t you believe that whites should at least symbolically embrace the church as part of their identity?

      • For the reasons explained by Manu at the sidebar under the heading “Apollo must replace Yahweh”.

  2. “The terrible truth is that the rise in population did nearly ruin us. It struck a blow at civilisation such as it hadn’t received since the barbarian invasions.”

    This is the one thing that most people tend to forget or gloss over. America, and all of the European colonies, were one heck of an important relief valve for all of Europe. Without a place for a lot of this population to go, Europe most likely would have exploded into many more wars (internal/external) with mass starvation and possibly a total breakdown of society.

  3. This excellent post deserves extension. One can see that it is the worship of money, and not God, that has wrought our destruction.

    • But the worship of God also caused big time miscegenation in Constantinople.

      • The point is, Chechar, miscegenation as a White problem didn’t begin with Christianity.

        Greg Johnson takes great umbrage to Christian universalism, which I think is what you are driving at here. Universalism is a benefit and can be a negative, depending on how it is applied.

        For example, Christian universalism united the disparate White tribes and kingdoms into what we call Christendom. Universalism, as it is applied today, is actually anti-family, and therefore, anti-Christian.

        For instance, how dare the Catholic Church, or any other so called Christian church, urge massive dissimilar immigration into any society, let alone the racist focus upon dissolving White nations only. A Christian serves God as Father, with the traditional concept of family as fundamental to its approach to social and national organisation.

        The way the various “Christian” denominations destroy nations and ethnicity is anti-family. Christ used the symbol of the father, and the duties and responsibilities of father to son, son to father, as instructive of how we are to be in Faith.

        Family therefore is intrinsic to Faith. That the “Christian” churches sunder nation and impose others upon us is very much like a father who *would* give his son a snake instead of food (to use the New Testament quote).

      • And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

        Luke 11:11

      • Actually, further to the theme of this post, where was Christian universalism and love for fellow man in that bastion of Christianity which was Dickensian London?

        But Christianity there had long before sold out for a mess of pottage and it was the great men of the Enlightenment who created the vast yawning maw of the mill to devour her children. All for wealth, which they made a virtue of by calling it “Enlightenment”.

      • where was Christian universalism and love for fellow man in that bastion of Christianity which was Dickensian London?

        I guess that the poorest or most miserable you are (like the non-white slaves), the greater Christian compassion you generate: slave morality.

      • But that misses what I was pointing out about the falsity of accusing Christians of “slave morality” when they obviously did not consider their White brothers and sisters in London to be worthy of sustenance.

        Further, these were people of the “Enlightenment” who created that London. Men like Edward Gibbon.

      • As I said, they preferred to help the niggers than the Oliver Twists.

  4. What do you blame for this monstrous psychosis when the Jews had not taken over England’s media yet? I blame Christian axiology (inversion of values) and, especially, runaway capitalism.

    The Jews certainly had won the finance and banking sector, which the English worshiped then, and still do, as their god.

    You may be interested in this take on the problem, Chechar (“Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not”)

    Michael Hoffman writes, here:

    The Renaissance Catholic Church’s embrace of usury was accomplished under a host of weasel words and euphemisms which have bedazzled and befuddled true believers in the Church of Rome since 1515. The encyclical “Vix Pervenit” of the usury advocate Pope Benedict XIV is a case in point. It was 95% anti-usury and 5% double talk that created an escape clause permitting certain types of usury. It is defended to this day by certain mind-bombed “conservative Catholic scholars” as a bastion against usury.

    The zeitgeist determines the ethics of the Vatican’s rebels against God. Today the spirit of the time is thoroughly homosexual and hence, the papacy accommodates itself to that perverted state of affairs. When the Money Power subsumed the zeitgeist during the Renaissance, an absolutist papacy opened the door to the beginnings of predatory capitalism. No pope has the right to alter God’s law. When he dares to do so, there must be a mechanism in place to correct or depose him.

    For the past 498 years, God’s eternal law has not been the guide or rule for papal situation ethicists.

    Hoffman, like you, assigns #1 billing to what ails us as what he calls “the Money Power”, love of money; what you call the One Ring (if I have you right).

    You write elsewhere, and this post is a continuation in the theme:

    From this meta-perspective that reviews several millennia of history the culprits of the West’s darkest hour may be listed, in order of importance, thus:

    1) The One Ring

    2) The Christian Problem

    3) The Jewish Problem

    Your problem with #2 is predicated on what you see as 1) Christianity being the cause of miscegenation, 2) that Christianity is a “slave religion” (you side with Nietzsche), and 3) Christianity not maintaining valorous values, being cowardly contra pagan Rome and Greece.

    The main problem with this thesis is that you treat Christianity as an amorphous blob from its inception right down to the present, making no distinctions then, and certainly none now.

    Your citation and approbation of Charles Martel discounts #2 above, as well as #3, #3 itself being countered by evidence of the propensity of Christians to willingly sacrifice themselves in pagan Rome right down to the present.

    As pointed out before re. #1 – miscegenation – this was certainly existing in pagan Rome and Greece long before the reign of Augustus.

    It would be helpful if you could itemise your problems with “Christianity” in point form, in order preferably, so that your readers can understand better what you propose to fix these problems, rather than simply crucifying all Christians (the work of Talmudic jews).

    • Your citation and approbation of Charles Martel discounts #2 above

      Why? (and incidentally, learn how the Church treated Martel right after he won the war).

      #3 itself being countered by evidence of the propensity of Christians to willingly sacrifice themselves in pagan Rome right down to the present

      Those were pointless sacrifices like the immolation of crazy Muslims today. It had nothing to do with protecting Western civilization or the race.

      rather than simply crucifying all Christians (the work of Talmudic jews).

      I don’t want them crucified, only the 400,000 European traitors that Breivik has so handsomely classified.

      • Why?

        Because Martel, the Catholic, was obviously no slave. To the contrary, he was foundational to what is modern Europe, home of the White race.

        Those were pointless sacrifices like the immolation of crazy Muslims today.

        Neither are pointless. The bravery of early Christians in facing torture, and violent death for their Faith contradicts the notion of Christian cowardice. Christian valour in war is historical fact.

        The suicide-homicide bomber is an inversion of the Christian martyr, but, they are obviously brave. Further, it is through this jihad that their religion is established.

        Funnily enough, the bravery of the Christians in martyrdom laid the foundations of their eventual administration of Rome through the western collapse into Medieval times to the present. It was through martyrdom that Christianity was established.

        Both are forms of bravery, though obviously quite distinctly different in what they established: Christianity birthed modern Western civilisation, Islam birthed death and destruction.

        I don’t want them crucified, only the 400,000 European traitors that Breivik has so handsomely classified.

        Well, those traitors aren’t, in the main, Christian, even nominally.

        But, I don’t want to detract from this post. You and I are in agreement about the destructive force of “love of money” in our people’s lives. There is a connection made by Hoffman, I think, between the sterility of usury and the modern collapse of fertility into the sterility of consumption, promiscuity, homosexual vice, and the pornography that is everywhere. We do live in a culture of death, though the man who made that point (John Paul II) was one of the greatest contributors to that very culture. In fact, it was his new cult.

      • contradicts the notion of Christian cowardice.

        No one is saying that they are cowards, not even Nietzsche.

        It was through martyrdom that Christianity was established.

        I disagree. It was through the destruction of the classic libraries, statues, monuments and even innumerable whites who didn’t want to convert.

        The fact that you wrote the above moves me to continue posting from Deschner’s monumental work as soon as I’m done with Sparta. I have already read what he says about the martyrs. It is something similar to what the Jews did with the Holocaust: exaggerations to hide the fact that the Allies committed graver atrocities than whatever the Germans did. Deschner backs his claims with thousands of scholarly endnotes; none of which appear in this blog. It was an eye-opener as to the real origins of the Church, very far from the tall tales I listened as a child.

      • Well, I look forward, as always, to your posts.

        Re. It was through the destruction of the classic libraries, statues, monuments and even innumerable whites who didn’t want to convert.

        I think that’s a bit overstated though it certainly did happen. I’m sure you are aware that the destruction of entire towns and villages, along with ransacking loot for the conquesting Caesar’s parade was a common Roman practice, long before Christianity took the reigns of power.

        You yourself mentioned what Julius Caesar inflicted on the Celts in Britain, I believe.

        Reading about the Antikythera mechanism in comments at Mangans, I noted that it was found in a Roman shipwreck:

        “The boat where the device was discovered could have been part of a convoy to Rome, bearing treasure looted from the island for the purpose of a triumph parade staged by Julius Caesar.”

      • Caesar’s looting was a different phenomenon from Carthaginian Peace: destroying the libraries, temples and priest caste in order to murder the spirit of a culture (what the Spanish did to the Aztecs too).

      • You mean like what Julian the Apostate tried to do the Roman Christians?

      • Julian didn’t destroy the churches; burn the Christian libraries, or ordered the wholesale slaughter of Christian priests. What do you mean?

      • Chechar, if you want to be consistent, you cannot on the one hand side with that faggot Vidal and say that Christianity was weak and insipid, inspiring decrepitude in the White peoples and then, on the other hand, accuse them of brutality and all sort of viciousness in pursuit of their faith.

        But, as I say, I look forward to your posts on the subject.

        Btw, off topic, I’m going to this concert this weekend. I’ll have a beer to you on the Sydney Opera House deck.

      • Forget fag Vidal; focus on my posts by Gibbon (again: once I am finished with Sparta I’ll add more Gibbon on Julian).

        I never said that Christianity was weak. See my above reply & postscript to Mark.

      • Setting aside the whole Christian thing for a minute, I would dearly love to see White people return to the Roman virtues.

        William Pierce is right on the one hand to excoriate Whites for their becoming animals, but how was it that he was going to get them to transcend their circumstances and return to virtues they should have been bequeathed?

        It reminds me of that William Carlos Williams poem, “The pure products of America / go crazy”

  5. This post on the West’s “Heroic Materialism” and your ongoing theme of the One Ring reminded me of the following description of what motivated the U.S.A. in the so called “Good War”:

    The twentieth century was not the British Century. It was the American Century. Churchill believed the two English-speaking peoples would be eternal partners, with British statesmen playing Greeks to America’s Romans. But when Britain was in her darkest hour, FDR shook her down for every dime. Poring over a list of British assets in the Western Hemisphere that Morgenthau had requested, Roosevelt “reacted with the coolness of a WASP patrician: ‘Well, they aren’t bust–there’s lots of money there.'”

    Looking back, Alan Clark was appalled by Churchill’s groveling to the Americans:

    “Churchill’s abasement of Britain before the United States has its origins in the same obsession [with Hitler]. The West Indian bases were handed over; the closed markets for British exports were to be dismantled; the entire portfolio of (largely private0 holdings in America was liquidated. ‘A very nice little list,’ was Roosevelt’s comment when the British ambassador offered it. ‘You guys aren’t broken yet.'”

    Before Lend-Lease aid could begin, Britain was forced to sell all her commercial assets in the United States and turn over all her gold. FDR sent his own ship, the Quincy, to Simonstown near Cape Town to pick up the last $50 million in British gold reserves.

    “[W]e are not only to be skinned but flayed to the bone,” Churchill wailed to his colleagues. He was not far off. Churchill drafted a letter to FDR saying that if America continued along this line, she would “wear the aspect of sheriff collecting the last assets of a helpless debtor.” It was, said the prime minister, “not fitting that any nation should put itself wholly in the hands of another.” Desperately dependent as Britain was on America, Churchill reconsidered, and rewrote his note in more conciliatory tones.

    And FDR knew exactly what he was doing. “We have been milking the British financial cow, which had plenty of milk at one time, but which has now about become dry,” Roosevelt confided to one Cabinet member.

    Writes A.J.P. Taylor of how Roosevelt humbled Churchill:

    “Great Britain became a poor, though deserving cousin–not to Roosevelt’s regret. So far as it is possible to read his devious mind, it appears that he expected the British to wear down both Germany and themselves. When all independent powers had ceased to exist, the United States would step in and run the world.”

    Pages 408-409 of Patrick J. Buchanan’s “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.”

    • Sorry for the long quote but I thought you may find it useful. What a great disaster was WWII and I. And all for gold and power.

  6. Can Christian morals support Whites killing large numbers of non-White “Christians” solely on the basis of safeguarding White genetic continuity? Even if doing so hurts their prospects for more conversions? Even if doing so means siding with non-Christian Whites against non-White Christians?

    Christianity might not condone mass immigration, but it’s too late to just come out and condemn it now. Massive numbers of non-Whites live in our countries, and their populations are increasing exponentially. Expelling them will probably require a great deal of violence, and will certainly require the credible threat of violence. Most of them are either Christians or economic opportunists who would “convert” to Christianity if they considered it profitable to do so.

    White Christians have a strong track-record fighting non-Whites who are openly aggressive and openly reject Christian doctrine. Their record of rejecting non-Whites who claim to be friendly and are willing to formally adopt the Christian religion is quite a bit weaker, especially insofar as the Catholics are concerned.

  7. But isn’t the most important question regarding Christianity: is it true? Was there really an eternal son of god, part of the eternal Holy Trinity of the three who are one, who was instantiated in this earthly realm as a carpenter’s son and would perform miracles including the resurrection of the dead in order to provide a means of salvation and forgiveness for humanity’s original sin which was the consequence of the two first humans being tempted by a talking snake? I mean this is obviously not true. Its mythology that would later become the basis of very sophisticated theology that has since become very sophisticated philosophy. Should some hypothesized neo-Aryan renaissance chose to continue this mythological tradition?

    I am not sold on the idea that a post-industrial-revolution civilization needs a supernaturally derived mythological foundation. Just because it was necessary in the past doesn’t mean its necessary now. Context matters. The ethno-state could probably base itself on ancestor worship or race-aware folk tales, etc. Or maybe some as yet unimagined non-supernatural metaphysics; perhaps a science / pantheism hybrid. But Christianity existed in a time and place and was the product of a very primitive understanding of the world. Perhaps Christian metaphysics can be thought of as a type of Jaynesian psycho-class that was appropriate when the bi-cameral “divine voices” were falling away and some sophisticated monotheistic “divinity at a distance” was necessary to take its place. But do we need that now?

    Yes, the Europeans took a vicious Semitic god and channeled Aryan genius through it. One only need to look at the Italian Renaissance to see that. But Christianity is part of the white man’s past. I don’t think you could bring back Charles Martel’s Christianity the same would you couldn’t bring back Scipio Affricanus’ Pagan pantheon. Christianity is a red giant about to go super-nova. I don’t think you could save it, nor do I think it needs to be saved.

    • It is already a super-nova:

      https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/red-giant/

      In the 22nd century Christianity will be a white dwarf.

    • How many Christians actually literally believe that God created the world in 6 days and all humans are decedents of two humans named Adam and Eve?

      How many Christians actually literally believe that a man named Noah put every creature on earth in a giant ship so that they could survive a flood that covered the whole world?

      How many Christians actually literally believe that a man named Moses turned the Nile river into blood and blotted out the sun for 3 days?

      How many Christians actually literally believe that a man named Jesus turned water into wine, drove demons out of people and into pigs, walked on water, and raised himself from the dead?

      Too many for comfort perhaps, but still two few for any sort of Christian revolution to occur. The mythology’s been squeezed dry and then some. Christianity is going the way of Roman paganism.


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

%d bloggers like this: