No, that really is what they meant by “Augusto”

A content warning: this post covers some disturbing comments by people on the right of US politics including threats of violence.

I cited a comment yesterday in the Debarkle introduction and a reasonable question was asked about it in the comments. I want to stress that the question really was a reasonable one and I do want and expect a degree of fact checking on the the Debarkle posts. So this post is not intended as a rebuke to the question – push back and alternative readings are welcome. However, the flip side of that is side-posts like this one where I’m going to check the receipts so to speak or…write a mea-culpa and fix a mistake where I goofed.

The downside is that this post platforms some nasty stuff. So if you want to skip it then that is a smart idea. More below the fold.

In the first Debarkle post I referenced this comment by Sarah Hoyt

Seriously, I think we should do the media next. Put the fear of Americans into them.
Saint Augusto bless us.
Anyone has helicopters?”

I stated that “Saint Augusto” and “helicopters” was a reference to dictator Augusto Pinochet’s use of “death flights” to murder opponents. There is a break down of this meme here

An alternative explanation for “Saint Augusto” was made. The Martyrs of Turon where clerics murdered in Spain in 1934 by left-wing revolutionaries one of whom was called Augusto. That would make the “Anyone has helicopters” line a bit weird but I’ll concede that with no other context that maybe Sarah Hoyt (who is from Portugal rather than Spain but who is likely aware of these events) could have been referencing this saint rather than Pinochet.

Except, she wasn’t.

Context matters and the context here is the usage of the term in the comment section of the According to Hoyt blog.

First consider some usage by regular commenters other than Sarah Hoyt in the comment section of According to Hoyt.

…Anyway, if it would take a miracle to be sparred the necessities of Saint Augusto of the Whirling Blades, what is appeals to him other than a request for such?

This is by “Bob the Registered Fool” who is a regular at the blog. “Saint Augusto of the Whirling Blades” is not a term commonly used to describe Brother Augusto-Andres of Turon nor would that make any sense in context.

Did Bob specifically mean Pinochet? Yes. Here is a different pair of comments in a different post:

TheOtherSean says: A better solution would be half-way flights on Air Pinochet for antifa leaders, funders, and government co-conspirators like Keith Ellison.
BobtheRegisterredFool says: Saint Augusto of the Whirling Blades, spare us that necessity.

And here again (and we will return to this post for more context):

AuricTech says: Call Pinochet Aviation at 1-800-BIG-DROP. Operators are standing by.
BobtheRegisterredFool says: With apologies to Saint Augusto, helicopters aren’t the right answer here. The FAA and the NTSB could reasonably seek to intervene, because deaths, and it just wouldn’t be wise to invite the scrutiny if you own a helicopter, or own a pilot’s license…

Now for more context. Those quotes were from a longish sub-thread. Earlier in that thread Sarah Hoyt had written:

accordingtohoyt says: I’ve been telling Polis (not that he reads me, but maybe one of his moronic advisers does) that he’ll get to be on top of Denver, sure.
But VERY briefly. And the drop is a killer.

“Polis” here being Jared Polis the Governor of Colorado.

And later in the same thread, on the same topic:

TRX says: Denver’s Department of Public Works says the city has 44,000 street lights. Just FYI.
accordingtohoyt says: Might not be enough. There might have to be helicopters….

Nor are these isolated examples:

snelson134 says: On my angrier days, I wish Trump would give them the dictatorship they accuse him of. With a frozen swordfish. Sideways.
accordingtohoyt says:
And free rides in Augusto’s airlines.

Or in this post:

TheOtherSean says: If Kamala goes full commie, it’s up to patriotic Americans to go full Pinochet.
accordingtohoyt says: St. Augusto of the spinning blades, ora pro nobis.

Or slightly less inflammatory in this exchange:

tregonsee314 says: It comes back to their relativist view of reality. They do NOT accept that there are absolute truths. To them truth is just opinion. So if you get all the opinion pointing in the same direction Voila its True!!!! Time to find a helicopter and show them that there are absolute realities like acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/sec^2 and believing it is otherwise will not make you hang in mid air like Wile E. Coyote…
Imaginos1892 says:
Objective reality has ways of getting your attention — most of them quite rude.
accordingtohoyt says: St. Augusto of the Hellies be with us.

Note this use of “saint” to characterise a mass murderer is a feature of the far-far right that is wandering into less marginalised rhetoric. See for example, Vox Day’s use of “Saint Brevik” to refer to the notorious mass murderer.

Let’s go the other way and look for Sarah Hoyt referencing the Martyrs of Turon.

If she has made reference to the Martyrs of Turon on her blog then I can’t find it. Certainly, references to it on her blog are so uncommon that her regulars would not understand who “Saint Augusto” was without explanation if it was intended to be a reference to Brother Augusto-Andres. Whereas, “Saint Augusto” as a reference to General Pinochet and specifically to the Pinochet helicopter meme is (as demonstrated) commonly understood at Hoyt’s blog.

72 thoughts on “No, that really is what they meant by “Augusto”

  1. I only see her posts at MGC, and most of those focus more on writing or publishing than on politics, so maybe that’s why I don’t recall her being quite this murderously vitriolic. I recall that she often completely flips out and enters into paranoid fantasyland, but this seems like quite a jump from her usual rhetoric, with less reason (though I guess fascists losing a presidential election is a bigger deal than fascists losing a literary award).

    Liked by 3 people

    1. She’s been going downhill since the Obama election at least. Maybe even longer, but I wasn’t aware of her before. But since the ramping up to the 2020 US presidential election, she’s been getting steadily worse.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “Joking” about throwing those who disagree with them out of helicopters is commonplace, not just on Hoyt’s blog, but on the blogs and FB pages of nearly every puppy I have ever read.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yup. Pinochet also is a perfect fit for the kind of libertarian-fascism-not-the-oxymoron-it-sounds that they want.

      Anti-leftist, authoritarian dictator who was loved by Thatcher and Reagan and implemented Monetarist economic policies. Death camps AND privatization!

      Liked by 6 people

    2. It’s not really “joking”. It is preparation, to make an idea take root and enter the subcouncious as a viable option, perhaps later to move to a likely or inevitable one.

      It is the same as when politicians constantly make references about a war against Iran. They might not want one now, but they need to prepare people mentally now if they should decide they have a good opportunity sometime in the coming 10-15 years. Best if people see it as something that was bound to happen by then.

      Liked by 6 people

      1. @camestros:
        I’d say anybody familiar with the U.S. history of lynch mobs should get ‘lampposts’ pretty quickly.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. @stevejwright:
        Fair enough.

        True, though JCW using the idea is really more a proof that it had already been out there for a while. Most of what I’ve seen from him hasn’t been particularly innovative.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. … in the same way that T*ump started, months ahead of the election, preparing his followers to believe that if he didn’t win, it would be because massive fraud had occurred. He had indoctrinated them for months leading up to the election to believe that it would be fraudulent, so it took barely a nudge to get them over the edge once the election occurred and he lost.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. And the same with Trump’s constant references to violence in his rallies — telling cops to not be so gentle, promising to pay the legal fees of anyone arrested for assaulting dems at the rallies, and so on. He was absolutely priming those guys for violence over the whole four years, whether or not he specifically said words like “violence” or “kill them” or whatever at the Capitol rally in particular.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. Such as Trump’s constant ‘joking’ about being ‘President for life’, ‘8 more years’, ‘I should get an extra term’ and similar testing for how the idea gets accepted.
        Anyone who knows how it works saw him constantly testing the waters to see how popular a Trump dictatorship was at any one moment.

        Liked by 2 people

    3. Somehow it’s more disturbing than the jokes I see elsenet (and have made myself) about how many tumbrils you’d need for the Trump administration. I’m not sure if the difference is just that Pinochet’s tortures happened in my lifetime while guillotines are safely distant.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Guillotines are probably a less-bad way to die than plummeting.
        (Contrary to RW’ers, there really aren’t many good ways to die, maybe none)


      2. (Contrary to RW’ers, there really aren’t many good ways to die, maybe none)

        Peacefully in your sleep? (Ob dark humour: Your passengers may not like it).

        Liked by 2 people

  3. The glorification of Pinochet always infuriates me, because several of those who escaped his murderous regime found refuge in Germany (both East and West), even as the West German government collaborated with Pinochet, because of connections to the Colonia Dignidad cult, which was founded by German emigrants.

    Those Chilean refugees talked about their experiences, so I heard a lot about how terrible Pinochet was. And I’m always stunned that Pinochet is either dismissed as “not so bad” (I think David Brin compared the Empire in Star Wars to Pinochet, whom he called relatively benign) or celebrated outright. Celebrating Hitler or Stalin is not acceptable, so why is it acceptable to celebrate Pinochet?

    Liked by 3 people

      1. He didn’t send an army after Americans or Europeans directly. So it “doesn’t count”.

        (what’s an assassination or two between “friends”?)


    1. This is a bit late but I wanted to double-check before responding: on this particular point I think you may be mixing up Brin with the Weekly Standard writer Jonathan Last, who called Pinochet “relatively benign” in his 2002 piece “The Case for the Empire”. That’s somewhat understandable since (IMO) Brin’s opinionating about Star Wars (e.g. Star Wars is ideologically bad because the heroes are knights and princesses with magic, not egalitarian ordinary folks [who are naval officers] like in Star Trek— also, Yoda’s advice about anger can’t be basic philosophical advice about self-awareness, it must be just a stupid mistake because how could anger at bad people ever be a problem, etc.), and his similar take on The Lord of the Rings (Tolkien is ideologically bad because the heroes have kings, therefore probably Sauron got a bad rap), have a similar dorm-room-bullshit quality, and he tends to fixate on “sure the bad guys are bad or whatever, but you’re liking these heroes for the wrong reasons!” in a similar way to the kind of anti-anti-Trump types now who proceed from “well yeah Trump is bad” to “but you know what’s really bad: Resistance Wine Moms” and end up at “Trump probably wasn’t even that big a deal, it’s actually good that he gave a voice to working-class anger etc. etc.” But I don’t think Brin has said anything like that about Pinochet.


  4. Regarding the executed Spanish friars, the Catholic church in Spain was also aligned with the Right and collaborated with the Franco regime and was also engaged in the large scale stealing of babies. Which does not excuse executing random priests, who may well have done nothing wrong (the Wikipedia article doesn’t give much background and with such ideologically charged subjects as the Spanish Civil War I’m careful about trusting Wikipedia anyway), but Spanish clergy killed during the Spanish Civil War are the sort of martyrs the right can get behind, unlike e.g. leftwing clergy killed by rightwing governments in Latin America.

    Though I’d also say that it’s a reference to Pinochet rather than to an obscure Spanish saint.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Or all the priests Franco’s government wound up imprisoning later. Which is another thing that the Right tends to skip over when they discuss the War.

      And yes, everything suggests that Hoyt was talking about Pinochet.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Just FYI, podcaster Robert Evans has a couple of recent episodes on the Spanish Civil War and its origins as part of his Behind the Insurrections series. Evans is unapologetically far left, at least for the USA, and pretty foul-mouthed, but he’s also very good about citing his sources. He makes it clear from the start that the anti-fascist forces committed their share of atrocities. Search for “Behind the Insurrections” for links to multiple podcast venues.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Everyone I ever heard on the Left, including hard-core Anarcho-Syndicalists (aka the modern day successors of the CNT/FAI) are all completely open about the fact that the Republicans in Spain, including the Anarchists, let their anti-clericalism lead them into atrocities against the Church. Of course, the Fascist propaganda machine made hay of that, but no-one on the Left will deny that the Fascists had material to work with.

        My personal opinion? If they’d had some bishops and higher executed for being Fascists (which in Spain many *were*), I’d have had no problem with that. Random village priests? Nope.

        Liked by 4 people

  5. She is seriously mentally ill.

    Considering that her life — politically, materially, economically, in terms of being able to practice her religion or raise her kids the way she wants, own a business, operate a nutty blog and express herself publicly– I have to assume that none of that changed substantively or measurably enough to need recourse to that level of hateful, murderous, unhinged rhetoric. There is not even a tenuous connection with reality there. None of the things she thinks will happen are even remote possibilities. I’m actually worried for her.

    I know many many people whose lives were ruined by Pinochet, including one who was in a torture camp for 6 weeks after the coup. SH would be a vile person if it wasn’t so evident that she is seriously mentally ill. But all the others… this is a real and very big social and vital problem.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. It comes back to their relativist view of reality. They do NOT accept that there are absolute truths. To them truth is just opinion. So if you get all the opinion pointing in the same direction Voila its True!!!!
      The irony of members of the alt-right making statements like this is, of course, completely lost on them.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Let’s not use (alleged) mental illness to justify bad behaviour. I have experienced mental illness myself, and I know people who are mentally ill (having being diagnosed as such, and on medication). None of them are committing crimes or hateful speech.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Oh, I am sorry and do apologize because that is not what I meant. I don’t think mental illness (a general and common medical condition) is the source of most of the comments over there on that site or among the far right in all its many forms on the internet or in the world. Just like drunk people don’t magically turn into racists or misogynists. It’s who they are. I do believe in her specific case she is genuinely and clinically not well and it was a real expression of concern (which she doesn’t need from me and will never see, thus making it pointless and performative). Your general point stands and I will refrain from any armchair diagnoses of strangers in the future. I apologize to readers that my comment hurt to see.

        Liked by 5 people

  6. The comment about the relativist view of reality… I have had the stirrings of an idea, lately, about that. This may be incoherent or an example of me just plain misunderstanding terms, but anyhoo…

    I’ve been a little confused for a while about how people on the RW harp on relativism, as they have proven, time and again, that they have a very relativist view of truth and are willing to shift their moral center as necessary to keep their worldview/narrative intact. You see that with their support of blatantly corrupt, philandering, dishonest politicians; with their condemnation of LGBTQ people for perversion while looking the other way at the Catholic Church’s or the BSA’s pedophilia problems; with their profession of Christian beliefs as they show a complete lack of care for the poor and downtrodden; and etc.. I frequently see signs of this relativism when I get into arguments with RW types from back in my Midwestern hometown – “well, you have your opinion and I have mine” about eg. whether 45 downplayed COVID, or other easily provable truths.

    What’s planted this seed of an idea lately is that I recently started understanding the idea of the Marxist dialectic, or just maybe dialectics? Like I said, I’m just starting to get what that means. My understanding is that’s at the root of why people I tend to agree with are always critiquing and questioning social norms and mores, and popular opinions about truth and reality. It’s not that they are relativists (there is cultural relativism, but that stems from a dialectical approach to understanding reality – it doesn’t posit that there is no such thing as truth), it’s that they are not authoritarians. They don’t take as iron clad truths the morals, values, prejudices, etc., of their society’s traditions. Instead, they analyze them – they poke and prod at them, take them apart and study them, figuring out what makes sense and what doesn’t. That’s antithetical to authoritarian thought.

    My basic idea is that
    – The dialectic approach to understanding the world is essential to leftist thought.
    – Accepting the worldview given to you by Authority (religious or otherwise) is essential to Authoritarian thought.
    – Authoritarian RWers see the dialectic process and hear “Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” They then conflate the dialectic approach with cultural relativism, and end up thinking that leftists are simply amoral hedonists who use cultural relativity to rationalize their vices.

    Does any of that make any sense?

    Liked by 4 people

    1. The missing piece is that they functional shift what they regard is truth according to context or circumstance or just because but they REJECT the idea that truth can be relative — hence whatever they believe at any given moment is the absolute truth. Once you absent any consistent methodology for discerning truth then you only have faith & instinct. So that’s what they believe reveals what the absolute & unchanging truth is.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. A big part of it is that they’re talking about authorities rather than values. To the average authoritarian follower (and Sarah is such a follower, despite the leader-noises she makes on the safety of her own blog), what makes them uncomfortable is not shifting one’s values, but shifting one’s allegiance from traditional leaders and in-groups to anyone considered a member of an outgroup is verboten. It doesn’t matter if that person or set of symbols is compatible with your values, because what matters to them is the fuhrerprinzip and associated (mainly racial) aesthetics.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Hmm, that’s a good point and is very salient to the *Puppers. My ideas may stem from my understanding of conservatism, developed in my teenage years, back in the late 80s and early 90s. I don’t think RWers were so absolutely bonkers back then, at least not in general.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. @Kathodus

      it’s that they are not authoritarians. They don’t take as iron clad truths the morals, values, prejudices, etc., of their society’s traditions.

      There’s also usually a strong religious component to those “absolute truths”–in other words, their God (Allah, Jehovah, whoever) said it, which makes it Objective Truth that should not and cannot be argued with. (Never mind that the entire concept is most certainly not Objective Truth, as the existence of any god cannot be objectively proven.)

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Yes, absolutely! No pun intended. I think religious indoctrination is a huge element of acceptance of Authoritarianism. It paves the way for irrational beliefs.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Or at least their interpretation of the religion, in the RWNJ case.

        Pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t have approved of throwing people out of helicopters, and the dude is certainly an authority on what it is to be a political prisoner executed for a crime. He even spoke favorably of those darn splitter heathen Samaritans from the political unit next door!

        Liked by 2 people

      3. As Fred Clark has noted over at Slacktivist, one of the problems with the ‘biblical literaliits’ who insist they are reading the plain text of the bible and not using any sort of hermeneutic to interpret it, is that they are using a hermeneutic to interpret it, but their very belief that they aren’t insulates them from any attempts to show that their actual interpretation may be wrong.

        We get to see Kathodus’ original point quite often in a lot of Creationist rhetoric: they seem to believe that people who treat evolution as the best explanation are ‘Darwinists’, and all they have to do is knock Darwin off his pedestal and everybody will stop following his ideas. They completely miss the point that people don’t believe in Darwin as some sort of inviolable figure: they believe in the ideas because they’ve been tested and modified and have stood the test of time.

        Authoritarians, particularly authoritarian followers, often seem to have trouble grasping that not everybody is a slavish follower of some authority the same way they are.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. So much this.

        I keep SMH all the times someone says something like “Biden couldn’t have won fairly — nobody went to his rallies so obviously nobody voted for him” — or one I just heard today, “Obviously nobody voted for Biden because nobody listened to his Thanksgiving talk.”

        Somehow these folks can’t grasp the simple fact that the Democratic Party isn’t a cult of personality. They are, so they believe that everyone else must be as well.


        Liked by 3 people

      5. @Contrarius: the best rebuttal of the “so many at the rallies!” was from Colbert, who pointed out that if that’s how it worked, we’d be inaugurating President BTS. *finger heart*

        Liked by 2 people

  7. It is utterly horrifying that so many of the people at MGC and Hoyt’s blog openlly fantasize so frequently (and so cavalierly) about murdering people with whom they degree. How can people who do that call themselves “Christian”? How can people who do that look at themselves in the mirror and believe that they are good people?

    On a tangential note, it’s been almost 3 weeks since Biden was sworn in. Is there any sign that Hoyt’s blog has been taken away from her and she’s been shipped off to a gulag in a cattle car, as she insisted would happen if Biden won?

    Liked by 3 people

      1. On any given day, it’s always Schrödinger’s Puppy. Before you actually click on the Puppy blog, you never know if it’s going to be

        “Endless Source of Amusement”
        “Hello, Police? I’d Like To File For A Protection Order”.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Hoyt keeps making noises about moving into some sooooper seeeekrit off-grid hideaway or some such. I just wish she’d hurry up and do it, and put herself out of our misery!

        Liked by 2 people

    1. Let’s not forget devout Christian John C. Wright fantasizing about beating gay men to death with tire irons, and regretting not punching the terminally ill Terry Pratchett in the face when he had the opportunity.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I don’t remember the last time I was in a church (wedding? funeral?) and yet somehow I have never fantasized about punching men with Alzheimer’s.

        (I met pterry once at Worldcon and he was just what I hoped.)

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Being “Christian” is part of their narrative, and the Christian persecution narrative appeals to them.

      They’re the heroes of their narrative, no matter how obviously villainous they act. Someone points out how vile they are – they’re being persecuted for being Christian. No matter how in-Christian their behaviour is. It’s all a big pretence and part of their rejection of reality.

      Liked by 2 people

    3. As a non-Christian, whose people were often caught in the middle of Crusaders and other Christian Persecutors for centuries, I see nothing about this that doesn’t match the historical standards of Christianity. The text has never been an obstacle to death to outsiders in their views.

      Liked by 3 people

  8. As a practicing Christian who does invoke the intercessions of the saints (though one who would undoubtedly be viewed as Not Really Christian by Hoyt and Wright), I have difficulty expressing how much that particular trope makes me sick and angry, even if they didn’t mean it, which I fear they do, or at least are ramping themselves up into meaning.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I’m right here with you, caminowheels, with a small statue of St Teresa the Little Flower on my desk. They are behaving, at best, scandalously.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I wouldn’t say scandalously, I’d say sacrilegiously. Insulting to people who do believe in the saints.

        I’ve had my grandma’s St. Christopher medal in every car I owned. Once I was driving uphill in a white out blizzard on a narrow road. Terror! I reached up and grabbed the medal, and almost instantly, I reached the top of the hill, the snow lightened to big fluffy flakes, and an exit appeared proclaiming a restaurant/store/gas station right there.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I think that “scandalously” is being used her in its older sense. A “skandal” is a “stumbling block”. When right-wing bigoted, paranoid, conspiracy-minded violence-fetishists call those aspects of their social-political beliefs, values, and assumptions “Christianity”, that trips up people into thinking that those are necessarily part of Christianity.

        I must admit that sometimes when arguing with such, I have sloppily used “Christian” as though their scandalous presuppositions were correct.


      3. Just getting back to this…Owlmirror is correct, I was using the older, narrower sense of ‘scandal’. I was (and still am) not energetic enough to do the research needed to determine if “St Augusto of the Whirling Blades” qualifies as blasphemy, sacrilege, or heresy, but I am absolutely sure it’s a source of scandal. (Something about dealing with Hoyt et al brings out my inner canon lawyer. I can’t explain it.)


  9. When I worked in Florida in the early 1980s, we hired a guy from Chile who was a big fan of Pinochet. I was pretty young back then, but I had followed the news about the coup, and I knew it was led by the army (encouraged by western governments) to depose a Marxist president who’d been legitimately elected. But Sal had this crazy story he told about how the Communists had mounted a coup and the army had merely responded to it. Didn’t seem to bother him a bit that it made no sense for the Communists to lead a coup against a Marxist president, nor for the “rescuing” army to kill the president and take power.

    That might have been my first exposure to modern fascism–not that I saw it as such at the time. That alternate-reality conspiracy-theory universe that justifies a strong man taking power and ruling through violence. It’s terrifying to see it getting any supporters here in the US today.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Libertarian hack Tibor Machan similarly argued that sure, Pinochet may have done some bad things, but Allende was socialist, so obviously he’d have done much worse!
      By the way, the book The Pinochet Files is excellent on recounting Nixon’s staging of the coup and our post-coup relations with Pinochet. Yet one more thing to hate Tricky Dick for.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. My brother and his pals called Allende’s office in the middle of the night (yes there were substances involved) and got his right-hand man, to whom they said they were a bunch of students who were so happy there was a democratically-elected leader there, good job, etc.

      Of course then the Pinochet coup happened 3 weeks later, and my brother figures he’s still on a watch list.

      (I wonder what the mom who owned the basement they were in thought when the phone bill came in. International long distance was *really* expensive in 1973.)

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Pinochet and the helicopters have been used by the U.S. authoritarians since at least 2016. They have flags and t-shirts and patches with the reference on there you can see at any of their protests. Only one “St. Augusto” would ever be referenced by U.S. people who consider themselves right wing. It’s simply a threat and it’s the same rhetoric as the gang of terrorist insurrectionists who invaded the Capitol looking for blood and taking pictures for their Instagram accounts when they did it.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.