Planet Grok

Where intuition reigns supreme

Planet Grok’s Positive Eugenics Plan for America

Posted by PlanetGrok on March 16, 2010

Today, at this very hour, the United States is facing a severe crisis of genetic proportions, with millions of our low-IQ, unskilled workers and “guests” breeding like rabbits on Viagra, subsidized by free pellets and easy females. Meanwhile, our most able citizens are opting out of the breeding process, putting our country on a course for demographic disaster. It is time for action. Drastic action. Our country needs a genetic bailout. Here is my six-point plan:

1. Close and secure our borders, and deport every illegal alien we can reasonably find.

2. Everyone with an IQ of 90 or below that chooses to get sterilized receives 4 thousand dollars for every point below 90; provided they also pass a lie detector test verifying they didn’t cheat by answering everything wrong.

3. Every married couple with an IQ above 120 gets 10,000 dollars per new verified child for every point above 120, and a 4% reduction in federal income tax for 18 years per new child.  So a married couple with a combined average IQ of 125 who has three kids under my plan would receive federal grants totaling 30,000 and a 12% reduction in federal income tax.

4. I recognize that there are probably more heritable traits that contribute to productive success than just IQ, so anyone with a net worth of over 5 million dollars gets a 5% reduction in capital gains tax per verified child, a 10% reduction of estate tax per verified child, and a 5 % reduction in income tax per verified child, in addition to the grants.

5. Immigration. While most of the so-called immigration we have seen recently has been harmful, it does not have to be this way. High quality immigrants contribute greatly to our country’s success, as our country’s history with Jewish, German, and Asian immigration has shown. I propose opening our country up to more high quality immigrants from non-hostile countries by slashing the red tape and waiting periods, and granting these aspiring immigrants 4,000 dollars for every IQ point above the minimum of 120 to start a new life here in America. In return for this generosity, they will not be allowed to vote or seek public office for 25 years. No new immigrants with an IQ below 120 will be admitted.

6. Slash welfare benefits. Eliminate the EITC and limit the length of time one can spend on any social safety net to 3 years per lifetime, with 1 year being the limit for Medicaid.

Any questions?

So President Grok, how did you come up with your numbers?

I basically pulled them out of my nearest volcano. An IQ of 90 -120 seems to be a reasonable range for “normals”, so no incentives or disincentives there. But if you’d like to take the time to propose better or harsher incentives and disincentives respectively, you’re welcome to do so. Paulson said he chose 700 billion because it sounded like a pretty big number, so I’m being a little more rigorous than my predecessors.

Won’t this cost a lot of money? Could it bankrupt us?

On a nationwide basis I expect it will cost less than the bank bailout and will be a true investment in our genetic future.

Eugenics? Are you a Nazi?

No. My plan is both race and class-blind, and it does not force anything upon any citizen.

Well what about disparate impact?

If intelligence is malleable (wink), then all minorities need to do is hit the books a little bit using the IQ test information that can be downloaded from www.whitehouse.gov. There will be equal access to all information about our new IQ tests.

Advertisements

51 Responses to “Planet Grok’s Positive Eugenics Plan for America”

  1. Vincent Ignatius said

    It would be easier to get the US to switch to a free market economy, which would nullify many of the negative effects of a large population with low IQ anyway and still give us the benefits.

    • PlanetGrok said

      A pure free market economy has as many flaws as pure socialism. Both are great in theory but rely on faulty ideals about human nature.

      Humans are animals that need to be herded by those best equipped to do so, we are not “rational actors” engaging in constant objective cost-benefit analysis, like libertarian and supply-side economists fantasize.

      • Vincent Ignatius said

        I don’t think so. A free market system is flawed, but not nearly as flawed as socialism. I don’t believe in human rationality either*, but empirically, government intervention in the market does far more harm than good so I’m in favor of removing government restrictions, even when market failure can be demonstrated. Basically, markets sometimes fail, but governments fail worse.

        *One of my side projects takes human irrationality as given, and then tries to coax irrational people into more rational behavior.

      • PlanetGrok said

        Markets not only fail, but market participants actively conspire to rig the system – without any of the accountability of government officials.

        I don’t advocate extremism on either end, but a healthy balance.

      • Jamila said

        There is no such thing as a healthy balance of socialism and free-markets in government; thats like saying you can have a healthy balance of poison and health foods.

        Markets do sometimes fail, you might call them market corrections. However why do you prefer government officials to monitor the accountability of the system instead of individuals?

      • PlanetGrok said

        Government employees are individuals.

        And government action does not have to be socialism. I do not advocate socialism. I advocate a free market system that operates under enforced rules. Rules which benefit the greater organism – the country – over short term individual profits.

      • JB said

        “Markets not only fail, but market participants actively conspire to rig the system – without any of the accountability of government officials.”

        Government officials can rig the system so they in essence have no accountability — kinda the system Big O is putting in place now.

        You have a point, but the broader point is ALL POWER is corrupt and unaccountable.

        America lucked out with its Founding Father, who put it on the right course. Essentially, we need a few generations of men to wisely and selflessly do the same now — largely in the manner you suggest. In these times, it’s a tall order, but not impossible.

  2. gordon-bennett said

    Another way to go at this is to implement a multiple voting system whereby people get more votes the closer they are to being the perfect citizen.

    Everyone would get 1 basic vote.

    An extra vote would be given to each person with each of the following qualifications:

    * married for 25 years;
    * raised 2 or more children to age 16 without them having a criminal record;
    * have an eduction to degree level, or equivalent, in an approved field (ie NOT media studies, basket weaving, yoghurt knitting, et bloody cetera);
    * lived/worked abroad for 2 years;
    * paying tax at the top rate tax band.

    The best in society could get up to 6 votes and would (we hope!) use those votes most effectively.

    The effect would be very obvious after a few years when political parties will have shaped their policies to take account of the new voting system.

    Perhaps commenters could come up with their own set of qualifications.

  3. OneSTDV said

    If your plan is race-blind, then regression to the mean becomes a problem for subsequent generations.

    • PlanetGrok said

      Regression to the mean occurs within the larger group. By cutting off the underperforming tail (and promoting the other end) you are effectively changing the underlying population group’s average genetics. It’s called evolution, there’s no natural law that says Group X will always regress to IQ Y no matter what. It won’t work overnight, but over a few generations the effects will be significant.

      • OneSTDV said

        Regression to the mean occurs for middle class NAMs, implying it’s not due to dysgenic breeding, i.e. smart blacks breeding with dumb blacks or dumb blacks breeding more than smart blacks. See this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Education2.png

        It’s basically this: Don’t import the Chinese basketball team and then expect to fill Chinatown with a bunch of tall people.

      • PlanetGrok said

        I’m well aware of middle class black regression to the mean. But that’s because American blacks rarely form separate breeding pools. (And also there’s the fact that a black person counted as middle class by these studies is more likely to be a cable installer working OT than a real white collar IT worker with a degree.) There are, however, enclaves of blacks (think brown paper bag test, Martha’s Vineyard types) who have outperformed for generations by basically separating themselves.

        To highlight this, look at India. The national average IQ is 81. But the children of Indian immigrants do not regress to their country’s national IQ, they are removed from the larger Indian breeding pool. The children of many African immigrants are often the same, they do very well in school and do not regress, in fact they progress from their parent’s level due to the improved nutrition found here. If they absorb themselves into the American black population at large, then yes regression would happen quickly, just as it would if Indians absorbed themselves into a much larger underperforming population. And among successful African immigrants, success is most pronounced when immigrants are from areas where a caste system is in place (and they are from the upper castes and already have not been breeding with the population at large for some time).

        On a genetic level, if two people mate who both have traits ABCDE for intelligence, that trait is not going to vanish just because that member is part of a group that tends not to have those genetic traits at the same frequency as other groups. That’s not how genes work.

        Two tall chinese people will also have tall children – I’ve seen it. Now regression to the mean might be a bit more pronounced because there is a higher probability of favorable environmental factors whenever you have extreme outliers, but more often than not there is a significant genetic component that doesn’t erode any further unless the exceptional individuals merge into the population at large. In short, the frequency of a true genetic trait within a population has no bearing on the direct heritability of that trait when both organism have it to transmit.

        Many HBDers too often have this fallacy of trying to force the average behavior of populations into some kind of ethereal law that doesn’t agree with how genes are transmitted from individual to individual or how evolution occurs. If regression to the mean were this force that operates outside of direct gene transmittance then we’d all still be running around with IQs in the 70s and 80s.

      • This was a concern I had about ” regression to the mean” that you addressed very well, Grok. HBDers abuse the term when describing NAMs, but doesn’t it apply to whites and Asians as well? I’m sure the probability of two smart people having a smart child is much higher than the probability of two dumb people having a smart child. That’s why I want to impregnate a smart person. Is there such thing as “progression to the mean”?

      • PlanetGrok said

        I’m not sure what you have in mind by “progression to the mean”, but there are different means for different sub-population groups. If you and your partner are both smart, then the odds of smart children are significantly improved. But the more you are an outlier compared to your family, the higher chance there were chance environmental factors that propelled you to outlier status, and the greater risk of regression to the genetic “floor”. So two smart people from smart families will have a greater chance of having smart kids than two smart people from poor, underperforming families. But this doesn’t at all mean that the ‘genetic floor’ of the latter is the same as the people group they come from! Especially the broadest people group, the racial one.

        HBD is certainly true, but it is often oversimplified, which makes it easy cannon fodder for blank slatists who point to studies like the one regarding the German children of black and white US servicemen, whose children by German women had practically the same IQs (just under 100). Blank slatists forgot to mention that the military basically segregated by IQ, so the black soldiers probably had roughly the same IQ as the white soldiers, and given that soldiers tend to be prole, there was not an especially high chance of lucky environmental factors contributing. All the German study showed was what I am saying, that genes know no race, you either have them to contribute or you don’t, regardless of what the rest of your racial group has or hasn’t. I haven’t seen many proposed “IQ genes” that flat out didn’t exist in Sub-Saharan Africans, instead they just exist at much lower frequencies (like 30% compared to 60%).

  4. Jamila said

    I second Vincent Ignatius. There are many jobs that people with high IQ’s will be unable to do because they will quickly become bored and lethargic, such as positions requiring substantial menial labor or tedious clerical work–you will need people with IQ’s low enough to be able to do this kind of work for years on end.

    Also, passage of a literacy and basic economics test should be required to receive the right to vote.

    And yeah, IQ is malleable…..

  5. I prefer a right to vote based on total taxes paid per jurisdiction. The basic principle is: If you pay the bills, you get a say in what you are buying. The more you pay, the bigger your say. Any other system is a power-wealth transfer from the producers to the “ruling class”, whatever that may be. Individuals would be free to voluntarily pay more tax to increase the value of their vote. They would be free to pay taxes in multiple jurisdictions, gaining votes in each according to the proportion that they fund.

    Entrenched lifetime politicians have been working for decades to transfer a higher cost of government benefits to a smaller part of the population (Evil rich people, Evil corporations, etc). Such people reward the entrenched political class with voter loyalty. The taxpayers are further isolated from a voice in the process with each new election.

    People who pay no taxes should get no vote.

    Either way, the concept of universal sufferage is in its very nature unfair to those who pay the bills.

    • P.S. Any money you get as a gift from the jurisdiction (food stamps and Social security from federal jurisdiction, state assistance from state jurisdiction) would be subtracted from the taxes you pay, dollar for dollar, and thereby erode your voting power.

      Well just see how important a right voting is when it isn’t free.

    • Jamila said

      Saying that those who pay the most taxes should have a bigger share of the vote is basically advocating a return to slavery: those with the most money will rule the rest of society in such a way as to turn the the vast majority of the populace into surfs. Eventually the mases will rise up in a show of physical force–it would have to be physical since they have been denied any intellectual say in the running of the country–and terrorize the smaller number of rich people who rule things. I can’t see such a system lasting long because there will always be threats from the bigger, stronger masses attempting to gain power via the only avenue that has been left to them.

      • The alternative is to enslave the rich for the benefit of the poor (our current system). THat isn’t working out so well either. It is on an unsustainable path and is certain to crash within the next decade. What will happen to all those serfs who have voted Social security and health care for themselves when there is no one left to pay the bills?

      • Further, it seems like a minor correction, but I did not advocate a wealth or even an income-based system, but a tax-based system. Any citizen would be free to pay more taxes to increase the value of his vote. But no one would be free to vote higher taxes on other people.

        It would not be the serfs vs the aristocracy, but the vast working middle class who would be in charge of both the permanently dependent class and the small number of “rich” people.

      • PlanetGrok said

        It’s odd for someone advocating eugenics to call someone else’s plan unfeasable, but I think Jamila’s right here – the country would break out into riots, fairly or unfairly, because people who aren’t doing so well would think the rich had gamed the system.

        It’s better to get at the root cause of why people are poor -their low IQ- and give them incentives to cooperate with a sane breeding program.

      • There is no breeding program that can make a living person smarter.

      • Prime said

        “There is no breeding program that can make a living person smarter.”

        Quote of the Year.

  6. You’re forgetting that many people on food stamps and welfare and all that DO NOT VOTE ANYWAY, and are not even registered. Like me. Not because I’m on Gov assistance but because I consider myself “out of the system”. I’m not invested in it, I’m not interested in it (for more than a few minutes conversation) and I’m living an “alternative lifestyle” I guess you could say. And I globe trot a lot.

    And I know many people like me.

    If people are given a choice between voting and getting free hand-outs, there would be a lot of people who chose the free hand-outs because at the end of the day – votes don’t matter.

  7. Another thing: for the sake of female sexual satisfaction, we need to keep Black guys around.

  8. S Blumenthal said

    ***Slash welfare benefits. Eliminate the EITC and limit the length of time one can spend on any social safety net to 3 years per lifetime, with 1 year being the limit for Medicaid.***

    I think you need benefits for children who can’t be blamed for irresponsible parents.

    However, I would make birth control shots a condition of welfare (which would be paid in food, clothing & provision of accomodation NO CASH).

    http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html

  9. Dalrock said

    My suggestion would be to offer incentives for women who’s mothers were on welfare to delay childbirth to say 35. I’d make the total package of cash and upgraded housing worth the equivalent of what the same woman would receive in total benefits if she had 3 or 4 kids. She wouldn’t have to be sterilized (she could choose birth control or tubal, etc), but she would loose the special benefits upon the birth of her first child. This would mean she would experience an income cut and have to move out of the nicer housing where all of her friends lived. Once they reached 35 they could still receive some enhanced benefits, including the housing unless they had a child.

    The housing would be exclusive to childless welfare moms and therefore be better than normal low income housing. You could have policies greatly restricting thugs from the premises, and you wouldn’t have the normal thugs in training which come from the women having kids.

    Feminists like to pretend that waiting until your mid to late 30s doesn’t harm your likelihood of having kids, so liberals would have a very hard time articulating the effect we know this would have. At the very least, delaying childbirth would lower their total baby count, and at best habit and lower later life fertility would conspire to take the count down to zero. The process doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be better.

    Conservatives (and everyone else) who thinks that people are a blank slate could get behind this policy for the following reasons:

    1) It isn’t intended to stop them from having kids, just to help them wait “until they are ready”. The policy would be framed as “empowering” them.
    2) By targeting women raised in dysfunctional families, those who believe in nurture instead of nature can tell themselves this is why the policy would work. No need to convince the general public IQ tests are valid, genes matter, etc.

    The race hustlers would sense the eugenic effects, but the angry mob of would be baby momas wanting the instant gravy train would change their minds. In the end they would fall for the feminist nonsense reassuring that women can have children as late as they like.

    • Dalrock said

      I forgot selling point #3 for Conservatives, etc:

      3) This will stop the “cycle of dependency” by allowing these unfortunate women to complete their education and start their career before having children. As we all know, every welfare baby momma is a would be Harvard grad if only they had the chance. This will give it to them.

  10. OneSTDV said

    And congrats and getting so many comments so soon. What’s your secret? [It must have been my plug.]

    • PlanetGrok said

      The fireworks first with Denise/LR and then with Obsidian are what made the traffic spike like crazy, and it hasn’t slowed down. Your plug helped too, thanks again for that.

      People like reading and commenting on casual observations from a guy who doesn’t take himself too seriously…I’ve always enjoyed reading Half Sigma for that reason so I thought I’d try my hand at it.

  11. Sagat said

    Your plan is just silly. All you need to do is detonate a nuclear bomb 14 miles over Kansas and send an EMP to wipe out all modern civilization in America. Then the bands of horse riding marauders will weed out the weak and stupid. That’s a plan to get behind.

  12. Hungry Hungry Hippos said

    AHH EUGENICS!11 HE’S HITLER INCARNATE, LET’S FUCKING CRUCIFY HIM AND RAPE HIS DOG! EVERYTHING IS NURTURE DIDN’T YOU PAY ATTENTION IN WOMEN’S STUDIES/SOCIOLOGY?!

  13. Obsidian said

    Hmm. Why am I not surprised that PG’s grand plan would do what pretty much all the HBDers do-focus on the left end of the Bell Curve? Yea yea, he does offer incentives to the bright folks t make whoopee-we’ll get to that in a moment-but you guys must be all reading out of the same playbook or something to keep focusing on sterilization of “NAMs” and the like. I think its something about the simple fact of people having sex that gets to some of you. For obvious reasons.

    Anyway, look, Welfare Reform has been recognized on all sides as a huge success. And the Black birthrate is very close to the White one. So, although I know its a juicy “redmeat” issue, the simple fact of the matter is that if you’re realy serious about HBD-and about “saving the smart(White) race-it means you’re for a plan like mine.

    I’ve written about it before, and guys like OneSTDV basically punked out on actually responding to it, but what the heck let’s give Planet Grok a chance! Just Google this post title along w/my name and it’ll take you right to it:

    Let’s Give The HBDers/Eugenicists What They Want!-A Though Experiment.

    In it I layout my plan to specifically target and increase the Smart White and Non-Jewish population. It involves aggressive IQ testing, high incentives for Smart Amy and Bright Emma to get started poppin’ them Baby Einsteins when they’re good ‘n’ ripe-no older than early 20s, say, 23 or so, to start. Ideally, we’d get em as soon as they come outta highschool, around 18 or so. And my plan calls for each Smart White Woman to have no less than 3 babies apiece.
    But here’s the best part-you know Obsidian always looks out for his White brethren-these gals would HAVE to mate w/Jeremy from the STEM dept on campus, who’s IQ is verified to be 140 or higher (oh, the gals would have to have IQs no less than 120, minimum)-NO jocks, or artsy guys, or guys from the business school-only Jeremy from the hardcore STEM departments can participate. So, we knock out two birds with one stone here!-we increase the overall number of Smart White People, AND, we get geeks like OneSTDV and Half Sigma laid too! Isn’t that awesome?

    Please checkout my plan, I wrote it up a little while back on my blog. You’ll like it!

    The Obsidian

  14. Obsidian, your plan would result in the same thing the PUA wannabes complain about but in the reverse.

    Now the hot Alpha jerks won’t be getting to spread their seed with quality women, only the Beta Brainy Boys will. That means there’d have to be a new “game” created for Alphas to be able to pick up and bed Smart Emmas.

    So we’re back to square one, just with a new set of frustrated guys.

  15. Obsidian said

    Nope Bag Lady, not at all. Remember, my plan places IQ first and foremost in considerations here. So lots of the Alphas will still get plenty of Women.

    It’s perhaps the only plan that really addresses the elephant in the room-the fact that Smart White Folk don’t make enough babies on their own. My plan tackles that issue head on.

    O.

  16. PA said

    Two points:

    1) those who run the country are smart enough to figure out ANY eguenic plan, and implement it right now. They certainly can come up with ideas that are as effective as any random smart blogger can. The fact that we have teh exact opposite of the effect you advocate suggests to me that the powers that be WANT it to be so.

    2) One huge problem I have with HBDers is their fetishization of IQ. One problem with that is, as Jamilla said, less-smart people are stil needed tof more menial jobs. Which is why a good proscriptive political philosophy is never race/ethno-blind; instead, it recognizes the natural kinship men of the same ethnic group share, and promotes a mono-ethnic society with a full gamut of ability and behavior range.

    • PlanetGrok said

      We’re past the tipping point of a racially homogeneous, mono-ethnic society…we can’t get that cat back in the bag at this point.

      Average IQ is more important than racial homogenity anyway – a country can be successful with diversity if it has enough smart people, but a mono-ethnic society won’t be successful if it has a low average IQ.

  17. ”It’s perhaps the only plan that really addresses the elephant in the room-the fact that Smart White Folk don’t make enough babies on their own. My plan tackles that issue head on.”

    It will never work, they are not family oriented enough.

  18. Sterilization of criminals and actual retards was widespread in the western united states not so long ago.

    Unfortunately, like literacy tests for voting in the South, the policy was ruined by racists:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma

  19. A Sensible New Girl Order said

    They excluded white-collar crimes, unfortunately. Would love to see the fat cats on Wall St get sterlized myself. LOL. But in absence of that, putting them to work for US in labor camps is probably a better option, more cost effective and long-term productive.

    Rape, incest and child molestation should get the death penalty, but in absence of that, sterilization via castration.

  20. […] – “Planet Grok’s Positive Eugenics Plan for America“, “The Defining Trait of a Natural […]

  21. […] The catch is you can modify an individual’s culture, but you can’t change his genes. The traits he either does or does not have will need to be selected for/against by the population at large, due to the culture of the population. Our wars in the middle east and in our ghetto schoolrooms have shown what a losing battle it is to shape a population’s culture. It’s much easier to strike at the root and adopt eugenic policies. […]

  22. Lady Raine said

    I actually rather agree with this policy under Presidency of Planet Grok (for once).

    Except that I don’t agree it can be based on “IQ score”. IQ is not a good indicator of the many forms of intelligence and an IQ test also cannot determine whether a person is lazy as shit, a criminal, or a pedophile (just for example).

    I do think that the hierarchy of society should be based on “intelligence” and I think that should hold true regardless of the gender, religion, or race.

    However, I don’t think that “IQ alone” will actually improve the hierarchy to be the way it should be (ie: more knowledge = more power).

    There are lots of people who live “stupid” and unproductive lives who have very high IQs (or have never had theirs tested at all).

    So I think if we wanted intellect rewarded as the absolute measure of “superiority” (for lack of better words) there would have to be several other ways of determining that. Especially whether or not the person works hard, payes taxes, and contributes to society in some way.

    Another “genius” laying around jobless and obsessed with video games (and declaring that it’s the ADD and High IQ that make him too good to do any work or contributing to the world)….there’s lots of those that don’t need to be around, either.

    So you need a little tweaking in that plan, I think.

  23. NotProgressive said

    High average IQ societies like Japan still manage to get their menial tasks done. The notion that low IQ members of society are needed is refuted by history as well. The American Colonials were self selected for smarts and motivation. Benjamin Franklin’s Philadelphia Colony had virtually zero unemployment and very low crime.

    Allowing the society to eugenically drift toward higher IQ would improve the likelyhood of sustained Liberty. Rent seekers and other clever types can game open societies by way of their relatively higher IQ, and hence their ability to snooker the lowers into wealth transfer. The amount of rent seeking by the banking class is estimated at 30% of the economy, as usury debt is necessary for each new dollar created.

    Also usury is embedded in each phase of production, so every good and service has usury transfer. A high IQ population would see thru schemes of rent seekers and lying politicians. Ordered liberty requires intelligent people to keep their “Kings” in check.

    Dalrock’s plan offers economic incentives and does neat end arounds on possible liberal and conservative detractors, beating them at their own game.

    Another commenter noted that the future is going to require high IQ types as machines become smarter and more capable. Low IQ people will be left out, and this will make social friction and upheaval likely.

    One point not mentioned is advancing medical science may be able to isolate high IQ gene clusters, making Eugenics available to those who can afford gene therapy for their future “test tube” children.

  24. suckfist said

    For those concerned that an increasingly intelligent society would result in a dearth of labor for more menial tasks, a form of participatory economics may help ease that problem a bit.

    A basic run-down of Parecon can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

  25. Leadership Style Test…

    […]Planet Grok’s Positive Eugenics Plan for America « Planet Grok[…]…

  26. Work Style Test…

    […]Planet Grok’s Positive Eugenics Plan for America « Planet Grok[…]…

  27. Makita Akkuschrauber…

    […]Planet Grok’s Positive Eugenics Plan for America « Planet Grok[…]…

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: