Posted by: aediculaantinoi | January 31, 2013

This…Again?–ALREADY?!?…and, FROM WHOM?

Hard to believe the first month, and thus 1/12, of the calendar year 2013 of the Current Era is already over. Did it go too fast for anyone else? Not fast enough for others? I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on that!

But, meanwhile, I’ve read the thoughts of some others as well recently, and I’m rather surprised at it. Let me try to explain.

Over at The Wild Hunt, a post covering the 2013 Conference on Current Pagan Studies went up yesterday, written by Patrick Wolff and expressing his experiences in and synopses of the remarks of the two keynote speakers: Sabina Magliocco and Peter Dybing. While some of Dybing’s ideas might bear further discussion at some point, I’d like to focus on those of Prof. Magliocco, since they’re much more relevant to recent discussions at this blog (and controversies related to it).

It appears that Prof. Magliocco addressed two forms of rising modern pagan fundamentalism: the adherence to the literal truth and factuality of claims about the origins of modern witchcraft traditions (particularly Wicca) as given by Murray, Gardner, and others (as well as counter-revisionists who don’t like the work of Ronald Hutton); and, hard polytheists who believe in the reality of the gods.

Crikey…this again, ALREADY?

"Polytheists are Fundamentalists--Can I Get An 'AMEN'?!?"

“Polytheists are Fundamentalists–Can I Get An ‘AMEN’?!?”

Based on the traditional understanding of “fundamentalism” (i.e. people from creedal religions that emphasize the literal truth of their scriptures), I’d certainly agree that those who, in contravention to what is known and factual, see the origin myth of Wicca as literal and historical fact rather than mythical truth (which is not dependent on factuality for its truth-value) are most certainly fundamentalists.

However, I think it’s pretty odd that Prof. Magliocco is defining an actual belief in the divine beings of a given religion as “fundamentalism.” In every other religion, such an acknowledgement is called…well…religion.

What Wolff gives of her remarks, though, doesn’t fit what I’ve seen in practice, and what I’ve both experienced and provided for others in practice. I make explicitly clear at the beginning of every ritual that I’ve done that “belief” is not required, instead respect and openness to experience, and that as long as one has that in one’s own self, and doesn’t inhibit the experiences of others, all are welcome. I’ve never seen any “tests of belief” that have been issued at the beginning of any modern pagan or polytheist ritual, even in cases where I know the individuals putting on the ritual (which would include myself) acknowledge the actual existence of divine beings outside of themselves.

To give Wolff’s actual wording on his understanding of Prof. Magliocco’s views:

The second tendency that has emerged in Pagan Fundamentalism is a belief in gods and goddesses as literal spiritual persons, formulated as a reaction against the emergence of humanistic paganism and panentheistic or archetypal interpretations of the divine. However, Magliocco argued, historically Wiccans have varied greatly in their theology, and found unity not in right belief, but in common practice. Against this non-dogmatic tradition of finding shared identity through ritual, Pagan Fundamentalists seek to exclude those who do not hold to their “orthodox” pagan belief in the nature of the gods. This is problematic, Magliocco argued, because it imported a criteria from the dominant Abrahamic faiths that was ill-suited to the ritual-focused nature of Paganism.

Again, I’m not aware of any religion that has ever existed that assumes only provisional acknowledgement of its theology as a valid, expectable, or “normal” position, and which would regard those who fully acknowledge their theological understandings as true (whether or not “true” is the same as “factual”–which is, again, a very important difference for which to account).

I can also say, with certainty, that this hard polytheist stance has been around much longer than humanistic paganism has–the latter is not a bad thing, and I don’t by any means oppose the existence of nor promulgation of humanistic pagan viewpoints and theologies (or non-theologies, as may often be the case), but instead I’m concerned with the historical viability of the assertion on Prof. Magliocco’s part. Just as equally as there have been modern pagans for decades who have had a more archetypal approach to deities (as many humanistic pagans do) despite the named phenomenon of “humanistic paganism” being relatively recent, so too have there been modern pagans who for decades have also acknowledged the gods as real and actual divine beings separate from humans and with individuality, volition, and so forth…and that theological tradition extends back to the furthest reaches of antiquity. Setting up the accused polytheist “fundamentalists” as “reactionary” rather than, perhaps, the humanists who have coalesced and articulated their viewpoint in contradistinction to polytheists relatively recently (which would also be a reactionary stance, even if it is not conservative in the traditional sense…though it is more theologically conservative to suggest “lesser” divinity rather than “greater”…but this gets into some tough semantics!), not only gets the historical priority incorrect, but it also creates a bias inherent in the understanding of “reactionary” (and therefore “conservative,” which is also often “fundamentalist”) that doesn’t actually serve to illuminate this situation, make it more sensible, or accurately portray it, in my view.

I think the assumption is complicated by the understandings of “belief” that are creedal in basis, which Prof. Magliocco is assuming are in operation here amongst polytheists, and the more experiential understanding of it, which I have advocated at length, including recently, is being lost in the process. When polytheists say they “believe” in the gods, they don’t generally mean it in a creedal way, and yet it seems Prof. Magliocco is interpreting it in that fashion purposefully. As Prof. Magliocco is an anthropologist, I find it odd that she’s missing this important nuance in how a given population understands these terms.

But, since everyone knows that I’m a Nazi fundamentalist, I suppose I would have a problem with this, wouldn’t I. :/

In any case, there it all is…I’d be interested in knowing what your own thoughts on the matter might happen to be.

And, with any luck, as January ends and the other months of the year come in their procession, we can leave this set of arguments behind and get on to more important things. (Hopefully.)


Responses

  1. Wow. This is getting really tiresome. Of course, I’ve always kind of assumed that the veneer of civility would get torn off as soon as the “humanists” realized that we polytheists meant what we said and knew what we were talking about. This new tone, less patronizing and more openly hostile, has a lot to do with the newly assertive, intellectual voice within polytheist circles, such as yourself. It’s getting harder to pretend we’re just the “unevangelized”.

    • Very much agreed…

      I had hoped to not have to write about this any longer (other than the occasional aside about me being a “Nazi fundamentalist”–which amuses me as much as it dismays me for all sorts of reasons, and is utterly contrary to anyone’s impression who has ever met me in person or interacted with me online or elsewhere at a distance for any non-casual length of time), but here it is again, by one of the luminaries of pagan studies. Crikey…we really are in trouble, then…!?!

  2. This is a trend of thought that’s going on in liberal religion generally, not just humanistic Paganism. In a sufficiently “progressive” room of Christians, it becomes awkward to talk about believing in God, or even worse Jesus, as a distinct and living personality. There seem to be people who are under the impression that the only way we can co-exist as a world of multiple religions is to agree that all our differences are purely symbolic and matters of personal preference. It’s another version of “it’s all the same thing ultimately” – because if we’re all just playing pretend together to build character, then it may as well be!

    • Yes…I’ve noticed that about many more “liberal” Christians. It’s like “liberal” has become a catch-all term for “total relativist/constructionist,” and “can’t actually take a firm stand on something or make a definite decision about a theological or ethical position,” other than “if you have an opinion, you’re a fundamentalist.” As a result of the latter, I think we’re in pretty deep trouble…

  3. “I can also say, with certainty, that this hard polytheist stance has been around much longer than humanistic paganism has …”

    That is undoubtedly true since ancient pagans were hard polytheists. When do you date the emergence of contemporary hard polytheism to though? Are you including Heathenry in the 1970s? I’ve read that Heathenry during that period tended to beard agnostic, even atheistic. The earliest indications of contemporary hard polytheism I have found are from the mid-90s, and it does not appear to have “coalesced” until the last decade. Do you know of any examples prior to that?

    • I know a lot of CRs who, before CR had a name (and I think it “officially” started in about ’90 or ’92) who were already of a hard polytheist mindset by the early 80s. They’re not well-documented, of course, but I trust the remarks of the people I know in the forefront of that movement (e.g. Erynn Rowan Laurie, etc.).

      I suspect there’s been a large range of theological stances, from hard polytheism to soft polytheism to archetypalism to humanism and/or agnosticism or atheism, since the earliest modern pagan movements. There wasn’t a visible and articulate presence, though, of humanistic paganism before folks like Brandon started going “more public” a few years ago. That’s why I find Magliocco’s assertion flawed in simply historical terms–if the early CRs were hard polytheists (which many of them were), then that’s earlier than mobilized and visible humanistic paganism by about 15 years, at least. Raven Kaldera’s associates have been doing hard polytheism for a long time as well–at least since the 90s, but I’m not sure exactly when.

      • I agree that contemporary hard polytheism most likely post-dated contrmporary humanistic paganism, at least in their organized forms. I also agree that both these things existed well before they became organized in their current forms. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of a couple of good candidates for early hard polytheism.

        It does seem likely that Jungian/archetypal/soft polytheism predated contemporary hard polytheism, and so the latter might be partially a reaction to the former (although I don’t mean to suggest that hard polytheism does not arise out of an experience with the gods). Would you agree?

      • Did you mean “pre-dated” in your first sentence?

        Again, I am not entirely certain on this, but if I recall correctly, Brandon Newberg started the official humanist pagan moniker within the last five years–certainly no earlier than 2008, if I am remembering right. I’ve known hard polytheists since the early 2000s personally, and have been one myself since ’03, if not earlier (I had an uneasy relationship with monism between ’96 and ’02, of a mostly hostile nature, and finally left it behind definitively in about ’03).

        I am not entirely sure to what degree Jungian notions had a major influence on the earliest modern pagans; but, I’m guessing the influences were there and strong by the late 60s or early 70s, since that’s when a lot of those notions became more widespread in popular culture in general.

        This is one of those frustrating matters: as much history as has been done on early modern pagans, little has been said about their actual theologies in many cases. I wonder why that is…?!?

      • Dang it! I meant PRE-dated.

      • No worries! I thought that was the case, I just wanted to make sure. ;)

  4. The comment above is gold – much of the ‘discussion’ recently is just universalism redux. Reading the actual article (I stopped reading the Wild Hunt a while ago, as it wasn’t relevant to me at all), I’m (again) disgusted and sick of the amount of hostility and willful ignorance and misrepresentation of polytheists. While I know of many…talkative…popular….humanist Pagans that make it their business to speak over and ‘for’ polytheists and basically troll us, I’m tired of seeing it in the wider community.

    (But the Pagan community has always had problems with its minority voices ~daring~ to step up and demand respect, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.)

    • I think this is why “queer,” along with “polytheist,” is also a good descriptor of me and my practices and my approach. Heavens forfend that someone not conventionally gendered suggest that our cosmological value is as important as more typical genders, or that non-heterosexist sexualities are deserving of theological import…or, that there are gods who represent these things, who have existed before, still exist now, and are also newly-emergent. Crikey…

      We must talk further at some stage for all sorts of reasons…! ;)

  5. Hahaha! “All polytheists are fundamentalists.” “I won’t do ritual with a humanist.” (While happily not an idea advanced here, this is a view I’ve seen expressed, though not in precisely those words – the actual words were more to the effect that they wouldn’t do ritual with anyone whose theology differed from theirs, because they would be “uncomfortable” with such a person.) A lot of people seem to be operating with an all-or-nothing attitude in this discussion.

    • Yes…and, again, since Prof. Magliocco is an anthropologist, it would have been wiser to actually see if any of this goes on “in the field.” I know of certain recon types who are of the “one tradition only” and “one theological stance only” school, but I’ve never met them in person, nor seen them give a public ritual where anyone else might attend.

      There’s a lot that isn’t quite right with the whole conversation, and with this particular iteration of the whole conversation, I think.

  6. Thank you for this post. I was going to write something myself, but you’ve saved me the trouble by saying everything I would have and in a more articulate and less profanity-laden manner. You, sir, are brilliant!

    • Although, I always love what you do comment on things like this.

      The whole thing done through cat pictures would be amusing, for example! ;)

      • Oh man. I just might have to do that.

      • If you have a moment, it would be hilarious, I’m sure!

        I tried to lighten this up a bit with my photo caption above–I hardly ever do proper captions, but this one and the whole situation involved was just begging for it, I think…

  7. In every other religion, such an acknowledgement is called…well…religion.

    You pretty much could have saved a lot of space with that statement alone. Seriously, though, I stand with previous comments that this debate is getting really old, really quickly. I do think, however, there is a bit of merit in John Halstead’s comment about the new, defined hard polytheism being a reaction against the archetypal, soft-polytheism of previous generations. Personally, I think this is a good thing and necessary for the self-identity of modern pagans in that it is not apologetic nor tries to make paganism into a feat of mental gymnastics.

    • Yes–generally, I agree.

      I do wish that someone would be able to point out the sentence you quoted here and how ridiculous it is that such is the case in the wider context of religious history. Since when has agnosticism been a default position in any religion? (Not that there’s anything wrong with agnosticism; I am something of a neo-agnostic myself, and I remain very skeptical in my discernment much of the time; but, at the end of the day, my theological position as a polytheist is accurate and fits the description of my experiences.)

  8. I was reading the Wild Hunt article with some interest until the following sentence

    “The second tendency that has emerged in Pagan Fundamentalism is a belief in gods and goddesses as literal spiritual persons, formulated as a reaction against the emergence of humanistic paganism and panentheistic or archetypal interpretations of the divine”.

    The majority of Pagans I personally know do indeed believe that their gods are real “persons” (individual entities), and this is not a reaction to humanistic paganism, or archetypal interpretations, but due to their experience of relationship with their gods. The “belief” is a belief-experience, not an abstract article of faith, or an intellectual position. These people are not fundamentalists by any definition that I could make sense of (and that includes me), and while the article may not have been asserting that looking upon your gods as real rather than symbolic makes you a fundamentalist, it seems to be implied here that this is a tendency which has emerged out of, or with, a move towards fundamentalism. Maybe it’s just badly expressed, but the impression is that the person who came up with that statement has never known such Pagans except as an alien object of study, and not well enough to understand the experiential basis of their spirituality. Where on Earth have they been?

    • I’ve written pretty much exactly what you’ve stated here in previous blog posts and columns…

      I am very confused about Prof. Magliocco’s comments on this issue. I’ve met her on several occasions; she regularly attends and presents at PantheaCon, where an increasing number of polytheists present and do rituals (though perhaps she doesn’t attend those…and she doesn’t seem to ever recognize or remember me when we meet). As an anthropologist, she should really know better than to paint with such broad strokes; and as someone who is and has been presenting herself as a major player in academic pagan studies and bringing critical thinking to the field, this does represent a very noticeable lapse in such practices and intentions, I think.

      Of course, all of this depends on whether or not Wolff portrayed her remarks accurately; but, let’s assume for the moment that he did until we’re told otherwise.

      • “and she doesn’t seem to ever recognize or remember me when we meet).”

        How many people at Pantheacon can be wearing a leopard-print and peacock fez? Is this a new fashion trend you’ve inspired?

      • Very good point…but, you’d be surprised (or, perhaps, you wouldn’t) on how oblivious people can be. I may not have been wearing it when I saw her last…I don’t quite recall now.

      • I work in sales during the day. People only listen to every 3rd word you say, so you have to say everything 3 times to be heard properly #trufax

        Working in a nightclub–it’s where the oblivious people go to hang out LOL

      • thank you for subsequent updates, it changes my impression of what she said and meant

    • I do remember Robert Anton Wilson (author of the Illuminatus trilogy, etc.) writing in the Llewellyn magazine Gnostica, back in the late 1970s, what when one treats the gods as archetypes, they will suddenly seem like gods—and when you treat them as gods, they can still function as psychological archetypes. So he was offering a “both/and” response to that question c. 1977.

      • Certainly, those approaches have much to recommend them–hurrah for sophrosyne! And thanks for mentioning RAW; I have yet to read much of his work, but I intend to get to it at some stage…

      • when one treats the gods as archetypes, they will suddenly seem like gods—and when you treat them as gods, they can still function as psychological archetypes.

        Pascal’s wager!

  9. [...] Sometimes I think the pagan community is this weird looking glass simulacrum, everything completely the opposite of the way it should be. I mean, if you actually believe in the gods you get labeled a Nazi Fundamentalist. Or as the utterly brilliant Il Buono Dottore put it: [...]

  10. Huh. I guess that makes me a fundie.

  11. I’d like to see a copy of Sabina’s speech before weighing in. This is second-hand information, and the gods know that strong reading and listening comprehension are not as common as they should be.

  12. Actually, based on the Wild Hunt article, it sounds like the criterion that Sabina is putting forward as fundamentalist is not “belief” but rather “the desire to exclude participants based on belief (or lack thereof).” But again, I’l wait to see the article.

    • Yes–as I noted above (and in several of the comments here), we can’t be 100% sure that this is what she said or intended. The notion of “believe like I do, or don’t practice with me” is a genuine concern on fundamentalism, and is ultimately one of the reasons that I left the original Antinous group I helped to found in order to form the EA, because belief was being used as a wedge issue, and even in the aftermath of my (and many others) leaving, the other group’s leadership continued to deride us for “pretending to believe in Antinous” while they “really believed in Antinous,” due to my (thouroughly Pagan!) emphasis on practice and experience rather than belief being the important issue.

      You can understand, thus, that my stating the position that I think taking the deities we worship as real beings getting me branded a creedalist Nazi fundamentalist really had my head spinning, since I’m about 180 degrees opposed to such views, and my attempts at clarification since then have not fallen upon ears that wish to hear…

      All of that having been said: it will be interesting to see the exact details of Prof. Magliocco’s speech. I don’t think Jason at TWH is in the habit generally of letting untrustworthy people report on events, so I’m inclined to give Wolff the benefit of the doubt on this; but, we can’t know for sure until we see the speech. (Are there any plans to publish it in an accessible form somewhere soon, I wonder?)

      • All of this “orthopraxy” business, the resistance to “creedalism”, is getting problematic in its own right. Pistis, “belief” or “faith”, literally the state of having been persuaded (peithomai) of something by virtue of one’s experience, is a legitimate category in ancient religions, and the attempt to force us into a box where we have practices or experiences, but no stable “beliefs” arising from them and further informing them going forward, strikes me as yet another case where we are supposed to walk into a frame prepared for us by monotheists who want some valuable conceptual real estate all to themselves.

      • Thank you for this–again, a reinforcement of a polytheist experiential basis for faith/belief/etc., which is what I’ve been advocating for all along.

        It is getting pretty ridiculous in so many respects…though, Magliocco herself has walked back some of the stated positions (which she said the person reporting got wrong) in the TWH comments section meanwhile…I’m going to make a note of that in a separate post soon.

      • Sorry my comments are a few days late to the party. As one of those who was a member of the previous Antinous group and is now part of the Ekklesia, I would say in agreement with you that my experience of the other group was very much in line with other fundamentalists I have experienced. “My way of believing is the only right way of believing! There can be no other way to believe!” It’s what turned me off to them and why I followed you to the Ekklesia Antinoou.

        My experience with you is the opposite of fundamentalism. You and I do not hold the same theology. You are a hard polytheist. I am not. I’ve always described myself as a panentheist. In practice I am a polytheist, but if you really look at my personal theology, it is panentheism. So you and I differ on this, but I have never experienced any kind of negatives from you because of this. It has never come between us in issues to devotion to Antinous. You’ve never implied that my devotion to Antinous is less because my theology is not exactly the same as yours. I’ve never encountered any difficulties in experiencing ritual together with you. Hell, I’m Wiccan, and you’ve never made an issue of that or implied that it might somehow limit my devotion to Antinous. So I am a little unsure of where these charges of being a Nazi fundamentalist come from. I see you as the opposite of that. You believe something to be a certain way. But you always say that is YOUR belief. You don’t insist that others follow the same belief, only that they show you the same courtesy. That’s about as far from fundamentalism as you can get, in my opinion.

      • Thank you for your encouragement!

        This is the thing that made the “Nazi fundamentalist” comments so upsetting to me, and thus why I’ve tried to use that phrase in parodic self-referencing so often since it was stated (i.e. to take way its sting through overuse and obvious ridiculousness). Anyone who actually knows me or has read anything I’ve written knows I’m about as far from a Nazi fundamentalist as one can be (though I do own a few items made by Hugo Boss).

    • I did go back to the original article on The Wild Hunt, and it looks like Magliocco has clarified some of the issues in the comments section.

      One of the relevant statements:
      ” Belief on its own can’t be fundamentalist, unless that belief is something like “Anyone who doesn’t believe like us is evil and trying to destroy us.” It’s *attitudes* around belief that can become rigid and dogmatic. To be very clear, my talk NEVER labeled particular historical or theological beliefs as “fundamentalist.” See my comment below for more on how I defined and problematized the term.”

      Also:
      I think there may have been an unintentional misrepresentation of what I actually said. My argument was that constructing a shared identity around belief is problematic, because belief is based on experience. If the gods choose to reveal themselves differently to different people, and if belief is changeable and emergent, as belief scholarship shows it to be, then shared identity needs to be based on something other than belief.

      Let me also clarify that belief in and of itself is not “fundamentalist” ( a word I adopted polemically and with some reservations). It is the insistence that only one sort of belief is correct, and the demonization of those who disagree or whose experience is different, that can lead to a dogmatic rigidity that we might want to avoid.”

      She seems to address some of your concerns.

      • Yes, saw those–I’ll be making a follow-up post noting her further statements soon.

  13. Sabina says on Facebook that people can contact her for a copy.

    • Scratch that; I was mistaken. She says she hopes to publish it in a public venue within the next year.

      • Interesting…

        Well, in the meantime, her clarifications in the comment sections over at TWH have been useful, and I’ll be making a follow-up post on that soon…

  14. I think it is unfortunate how belief is often treated like a dirty word rather than a valuable spiritual experience. Your writing on the subject inspired me to post on my blog regarding the subject of belief via doxa. Athough orthopraxy may be useful in a sense of doing ritual with a large number of people who are more or less on the same page when it comes to practices, it also very rewarding as I have recently found to connect with people who share similar experiential beliefs. The idea that this leaps immediately into dogma and fundamentalism is rather insulting in my opinion.

    • Yes, my thoughts exactly…

      Being I am a Doctor, I can’t do my job without some sort of doctrina, after all, and doxa is the Greek equivalent…!

      Not unlike the creedal form of atheism that is currently rampaging across the world (although some of its critiques of institutional creedal monotheism are both useful and valid), I suspect a huge amount of modern pagan anti-creedalism and these screeds on “You have a theological opinion–you must be a fundie!” come much more from just an adolescent reaction against the religion many of us broke away from rather than anything more useful.

      Imagine teenagers rebelling against their parents, and then attempting to be adults, and in doing so saying “I’m not going to live in a house, or wear any clothes, or eat any food, or use language, because my parents did and I hate my parents! Bleb buh blah di dee whoop di whoop!” That’s what so much of this seems like to me…only nowhere near as intelligible as the final phrase there. ;)

      • “and doxa is the Greek equivalent”

        Which does not, I trust, make you a doxy. ;)

    • A clearly bad way to try to enforce pluralism is to claim that everyone’s beliefs are false, so everyone’s beliefs are equally true, since 0=0. Everybody hence should get along. It’s pretty widely recognized that this “as if” attitude toward deeply held matters like religion is not selling well, never has, but virtually its last hope is that Pagans are sufficiently committed to pluralism that they, at least, can be bullied into it, and sacrifice the real pluralism of polytheism for the fake pluralism of “as if” theology.

    • Let me clarify further what I mean here: the position which is offered is one in which all beliefs are relatively false before a Truth, which albeit evidently singular, is flux-like in nature, and therefore non-propositional. This flux-like, non-propositional character is supposed to be sufficiently pluralish, as it were, to satisfy the polytheist, while the overall monism is supposed to placate the monotheist. In any such intellectual transaction, of course, it is we, as the relatively powerless group, who shall find ourselves robbed.

      Polytheists need to recognize the valuable resource they represent, however, and push for a different sort of transaction instead, in which we represent the metaphysical core of a far more robust pluralism, one which has the opportunity, as well, of reclaiming the traditionally “conservative” ground of classical metaphysics. In this sense, we have something both of the other parties in the transaction badly desire: the humanist desires a pluralism that is not relativistic, while the monotheist desires—if there isn’t a more advantageous deal on the table—a strong metaphysics that is not implacably hostile to theism in general.

  15. [...] other day, I posted about Prof. Magliocco’s comments on the rise of pagan fundamentalism, as this was a topic posted about recently on The Wild Hunt. I’m very happy with the [...]

  16. [...] few weeks I’ve discussed the issue of “pagan fundamentalism” here, particularly in response to Prof. Sabina Magliocco’s keynote presentation on this recently. I also posted a clarification on certain points that Prof. Magliocco did in the comments from the [...]

  17. […] course when we do that we get accused of being intolerant separatist fundamentalists so you just can’t win with these […]

  18. […] dare those “hard” “radical” “dangerous” “fundamentalist” people try to curtail our freedoms and criticize something like child molestation! The […]


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

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 315 other followers