57 comments on “The Manuresphere Is Incapable Of Accomplishing Anything

  1. Tomassi recently did a senseless anti-MGTOW post and got ripped on all the pro-MGTOW sites.

    Dalrock just did a pro-game/pro-marriage post and a lurker posted “nah, that doesn’t work, she’s divorcing my ass and there’s nothing I can do it seems to stop it.”. On every post there’s at least one tradcon who delurks and posts one time and says that their getting divorced then the regular commenters say, ” oh bummer sorry but that’s just how women are…”

    They’re leading men astray causing more damage. Keep calling em out.

    • I think your talking about this…

      http://therationalmale.com/2015/03/01/the-isolationists/

      haha, if he is so “rational”-wonder why he clings to the religion of “game” the way a feminist clings to the religion of “patriarchy.”

      First off, the “reader’s statement” sets up a dichotomy-irrational male almost get’s it right (and I think he’s smart enough to get it right but is invested in selling game.”)

      While some MGTOW’s may practice “indifference” -it’s likely more about survival than an attempt to make themselves more attractive.

      wonder why theses “men” feel the need to bash MGTOW’s as hard as feminists bash MGTOW’s-is it because that can’t sell MGTOW’s their crappy books or is it jealousy because they see men taking themselves out of the circle of stupidity?

  2. Tomassi has his own book to sell. That is all he gives a shit about. It’s painful to read through his long, rambling posts. Hypergamy this, Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks that. It’s in his best interests to keep men hooked on ideas like “game”. MGTOW puts a damper on that so he rails against. I can just picture the dudes who follow his every word and nodding like trained parrots.

      • these guys are beyond delusional…

        if anything, releasing those logs makes the other guy seem reasonable…

        just like the doxxing of MGTOW’s-it hasn’t made the ideas become “stupid.” If anything, people have more respect for Barbarosssa and Stardusk…

        Just curious, why do you have a link to Fidelbogen? That guy is another anti-MGTOW nutcase….

        • Just curious, why do you have a link to Fidelbogen? That guy is another anti-MGTOW nutcase….

          That’s an oversight. There’s several things I need to update on this blog that I have not had time to do. Needless to say I just deleted that link.

      • Hey man. Don’t believe I actually seen your name posted anywhere on here. Do you mind if I link to this site in an article I’m releasing in a couple days about “game”? I was going to use the term “manuresphere” but wanted to credit where credit is due and link to this site.

  3. TBP, the Syndicate is a conspiracy, therefore, you accept that conspiracies can exist. It’s rationally possible for (1) conspiracies to exist, and (2) women to still be fully responsible for their actions in furthering, whether wittingly or non-, said conspiracies.

    As you’ve pointed out many times, the Syndicate isn’t an accidental conspiracy based on atomized efforts achieving synergy, but rather, a deliberate ploy effected by the coordinated spread of misinformation and financial abuses. It’s certainly helped along by morons who aren’t part of the original conspirators, but there are indeed people behind the curtain who know exactly what they’re doing.

      • You’ll notice that, in my original post, I didn’t use the pejorative, thought-deadening term “conspiracy theory.” I just said, “conspiracy.”

        If any variation on the word “conspire” is upsetting to you, you tell me what kind of word you prefer to use for such situations. Take the Game/PUA marketing organizations, for example–you clearly believe that they exist. What term would you prefer to use to describe a group of people who gets together in secret and plans how to manipulate others to gain money/power?

        You clearly don’t mind “syndicate,” since you’ve used that term yourself. Is that the only one you feel should be used?

        • Okay, so you don’t like “syndicate” now, either. You should add a disclaimer to the post in your header, indicating that it’s fanciful to believe in organized “syndicates” that try to manipulate people.

          Here are some of the other terms you’ve used; please let us know which ones are no longer acceptable:

          Paleo-diet scam…

          Organization of…con artists…

          Pyramid scheme…

          “syndicates” where…con artists get together to boost each other…

          That unpleasant sensation you’re feeling right now is called cognitive dissonance. It is caused by you realizing that your entire site is based around a number of theories of group behavior that could be called “conspiracy theories” by someone who wanted to dismiss your arguments without actually addressing them. And yet, you simultaneously hold the position that “conspiracy theories” are stupid. When someone points out that you are simultaneously believing/advocating two contradictory concepts, you grow upset at the threat to your worldview, and seek to insult or ignore me, the messenger, rather than addressing the points I’ve raised.

          You are correct that the Game/PUA people have formed many such interrelated scams. You are correct that, as your thematic quote above suggests, there is a “systematic problem” with feminism.

          Now, the proper course for you to follow is to not act like a cowardly woman and run away from me while calling me names. Instead, own up to your mistake, and concede that it is possible that, somewhere in the world, there are other organizations like the “internet marketing syndicate responsible for game blogs.”

          You’ve proven yourself intelligent enough to analyze and understand multiple kinds of complex scams–modern western feminism, and the modern western manosphere. Don’t let your intellectual journey come to an end there! There is a whole world of other things to discover.

        • I can’t tell if you have failed reading comprehension or are trying to create a straw man argument. Here is an example of this:

          I have never talked about “syndicates”. I have talked about The Syndicate, singular not plural, Frank Kern, Eben Pagan, etc. The Syndicate is what they call themselves. It is not my name for them. They could just as easily call themselves the Union of Koala Bears for all I care.

          Either you misunderstand or are intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote.

        • Thanks Omega…so, to be clear, you’re saying that The Syndicate is not a syndicate?

          Follow-up questions:

          1) Are there any syndicates in the world, or just The Syndicate?

          2) Does any other group of people act the way The Syndicate does (e.g., organizing in order to manipulate people for their organization’s gain)?

        • It would seriously help if you tried to read the source material on this. The Syndicate is not a top down bureaucratic organization. It’s a bottom up loose coalition of online scammers who help each other, but run their own individual scams (which may or may not be related to each other). They’re not working to benefit the organization of The Syndicate but themselves individually.

          The maunuresphere is similar but with a lot more self delusion about what they’re doing.

          Let’s cut to the chase. What exactly is the issue you are trying to address? You’re not the first to try this line of questioning, and they were all trolls, so you need to be more concise about your issue if you’re different.

        • TBP says: “The Syndicate is not a top down bureaucratic organization. It’s a bottom up loose coalition of online scammers who help each other, but run their own individual scams (which may or may not be related to each other). They’re not working to benefit the organization of The Syndicate but themselves individually.”

          All right, so it’s not the term “syndicate” that bothers you, but rather, the idea that people might conspire in a “top down” way? You’re open to the possibility that people might conspire in a “bottom up” way?

          That’s weird…so, to you, when women’s suffrage became a national issue in the U.S. in the early twentieth century, it was the result of corporate news media responding to a series of disconnected bottom up movements caused by the individual decisions of millions of atomized men and women to, at that point in time, abruptly become keenly passionate about female suffrage?

          “The issue” I’m trying to address is coordination. You seem to be basing all your arguments here on biological determinism–women are stupid and/or evil, therefore feminism. But that fails to explain why feminism would occur now, rather than 100,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago, or 500 years ago, et cetera.

          Elements of coordination necessarily seem to have something to do with it. Women didn’t suddenly evolve into feminists 100 years ago. And yet, you’re highly resistance to the idea that feminism may have been in some way coordinated.

          Now, you don’t like the idea of exonerating the set known as “women” from responsibility for their actions. That seems like a fair enough idea. But women can be responsible for feminism even if there are other factors involved.

          For example, Eve may be predisposed to eat the Apple, and may be inherently that sinful. Ergo she is fully to blame for eating the Apple. Yet Satan still played a role, because without Satan, maybe she wouldn’t have had the courage to eat said apple.

          Similarly, maybe women are always evil, manipulative, selfish creatures, and maybe they should all be judged that way, but if something else motivated or assisted them in establishing feminism, that something else merits your attention.

          If women are nothing but a boulder perched on top of a mountain, shouldn’t we take an interest in exactly who pushed the boulder over the edge?

          Fire ants, right? You wouldn’t want to live with a bunch of fire ants. And yet, the world has millions upon millions of fire ants, and you’re not particularly concerned about them right now. If some biologist were to move in next door, though, and leave his ant farms open, your apartment might get filled with fire ants. You might find yourself squishing fire ants constantly, and you might hate them forever. Do you blame the fire ants, or the idiot biologist who left his ant-farm lids open?

        • but rather, the idea that people might conspire in a “top down” way? You’re open to the possibility that people might conspire in a “bottom up” way?

          Given that such a thing is much simpler, yes. Not only that but conspiracy theorists want me to believe in a top down, static, extremely large scale, multigenerational conspiracy with a grand agenda like murdering hundreds of millions if not billions of people. And that said conspiracy has absolutely no dissent and no internal political differences. (The Syndicate, the mafia, and any criminal conspiracy fails to meet those criteria.) That’s completely impossible. Anyone with a basic knowledge of sociology knows that. That’s even true of conspiracy theorists. If you drill down enough, conspiracy theorists will admit that they believe that either aliens or demons are behind the conspiracies they believe in because even they know that humans aren’t capable of successfully organizing in that manner.

          And this is before we get to the issue of how everything conspiracy theorists say completely lacks evidence.

          And I have noticed that conspiracy theorists all conveniently have something to sell me that they say will protect me from said impossible conspiracy. What is more likely, that an impossible to execute conspiracy exists, or that conspiracy theorists are con artists? Clearly, the latter. When The Salty Droid exposed The Syndicate, he didn’t try to sell me anything.

          so, to you, when women’s suffrage became a national issue in the U.S. in the early twentieth century, it was the result of corporate news media responding to a series of disconnected bottom up movements caused by the individual decisions of millions of atomized men and women to, at that point in time, abruptly become keenly passionate about female suffrage?

          Given that the job of the news media is to report the NEWS, this makes perfect sense. When some women start agitating for the right to vote, that would be NEWS. Also, there have been women in the US trying (and in some cases succeeding in a limited fashion) to get the right to vote since the 1700s. Women’s sufferage is not something that showed up out of nowhere. The idea has been around for centuries.

          “The issue” I’m trying to address is coordination. You seem to be basing all your arguments here on biological determinism–women are stupid and/or evil, therefore feminism. But that fails to explain why feminism would occur now, rather than 100,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago, or 500 years ago, et cetera.

          Because you don’t have time for feminism if you have to work 12 hours a day to make sure you have something to eat. Feminism didn’t get started until a sufficient number of women had enough time on their hands. It’s the principle of idle hands being the devil’s workshop.

          For example, Eve may be predisposed to eat the Apple, and may be inherently that sinful. Ergo she is fully to blame for eating the Apple. Yet Satan still played a role, because without Satan, maybe she wouldn’t have had the courage to eat said apple.

          You expect me to seriously take “the devil made me do it” combined with what sounds like a woman blaming the nearest man for everything, as women usually do, as a serious argument?

          but if something else motivated or assisted them in establishing feminism, that something else merits your attention.

          Manginas assisted women. I have not disputed that. However, the manginas were in a subordinate position to women, not the other way around. Since we have been talking about women’s suffrage in the US, here is a good example. Women’s suffrage came down to one man in the Tennesee general assembly, Harry T. Burn. He originally planned on voting against women’s suffrage until his mommy told him to vote for it. If a grown man elected to a state assembly can be that easily controlled by women, then it’s clear that there is no group of men behind feminism.

          Women are not boulders or fire ants. They have agency. That is why your analogies fail. You like conspiracy theorists are trying to tell me that women have no agency. That alone is reason enough to not believe in conspiracy theory.

        • 1) There’s no need to lump me in with people you’ve earlier encountered just because I don’t immediately agree with you. For the record, “Women have agency.”

          2) It’s interesting that you say that the job of news media is to report the news. I thought everyone had figured that one out already. Let’s start simple: does Jezebel.com accurately report the news? You may counter that they’re not part of the news media. All right, then, does Huffington Post accurately report the news? Does Fox News? Does NPR?

          Corporate news media portray certain things for certain reasons, and they do not fully and comprehensively report all things that could be reasonably deemed “news.” In fact, they often report quite the opposite. For example, we hear a lot about Oprah’s book club, but we hear very little about thousands of men jailed for being unable to make alimony payments when they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Which issue better qualifies as news?

          You would surely, at least, agree that “the news media” reports far more about male-on-female rape allegations than it does on female-on-male domestic violence, correct?

          What makes you believe, then, that the twentieth century corporate media was so detached, impartial, and fair, that they only began making women’s suffrage a national issue at one particular point in the 20th century, while otherwise marginalizing it before then?

          3) Do you believe that wealthy, influential British noblewomen of the 17th and 18th centuries did not have time to come up with feminism? That they had decades to idle away with gossip and selecting new dresses, but that they were prevented from coming up with feminism because their work choosing new frocks and gossiping about relationships was 12-hour-a-day arduous?

          4) Your own viewpoint could be accused of trying to sell sex dolls, internet porn, video games, and other things conducive to “going your own way.” Does that invalidate your viewpoint? No.

          You’re probably not trying to sell things; you’re probably just trying to explain the world as you see it, and possibly educate or assist other people in understanding it.

          What is so frightening about the idea that there might be other bottom-up movements similar to feminism? Is feminism the only bottom-up conspiracy ever to occur in all of human history?

        • You would surely, at least, agree that “the news media” reports far more about male-on-female rape allegations than it does on female-on-male domestic violence, correct?

          Sure but it doesn’t seem to work out too well for them. With cases from Duke Lacrosse to UVa being completely fabricated, all they end up doing providing more examples that women are dishonest. (And that is important news.) If that is supposed to be a conspiracy to promote feminism, it’s the most inept organized effort in human history.

          What makes you believe, then, that the twentieth century corporate media was so detached, impartial, and fair, that they only began making women’s suffrage a national issue at one particular point in the 20th century, while otherwise marginalizing it before then?

          The media was reporting on it before 1900. Putting that aside, it’s not a conspiracy to have manginas in the media or any place else.

          Do you believe that wealthy, influential British noblewomen of the 17th and 18th centuries did not have time to come up with feminism?

          Why limit yourself to the British? There are plenty of examples of noblewomen (and other women) expressing feminist ideas or protofeminist ideas. And on the mangina side of things that includes Plato.

          Your own viewpoint could be accused of trying to sell sex dolls, internet porn, video games, and other things conducive to “going your own way.”

          Do you see anything on the blog where I’m selling those things (or anything else)? All I have to do is go to any major manuresphere blog, and they will have a book (if not several books) for sale on their front page. If I go to David Icke’s or Alex Jones’s websites or Natural News, they all have ads for books, DVDs, colloidal silver, and other health junk prominently displayed on their front page. Are you really that unaware of this?

          What is so frightening about the idea that there might be other bottom-up movements similar to feminism?

          When have I said that there aren’t other bottom up movements?

        • TBP: “With cases from Duke Lacrosse to UVa being completely fabricated, all they end up doing providing more examples that women are dishonest.”

          Yes, that’s true. But how much does it matter that you, and your readers, are aware that feminism is based upon using a 70-80% male taxpayer base to finance a racket of imprisonment, rape, and financial ruin for male citizens? It hardly matters at all, because while the Duke Lacrosse story is obvious to you (and to the manuresphere), it is not obvious to others.

          The minuscule attention spans of most western media viewers caused them to take one thing away from the Duke Lacrosse scandal: A bunch of college boys raped some poor woman.

          It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t true, or that it was proven wrong later. The story accomplished exactly what it was supposed to. The world at larger is immune to the later proofs that it was all a lie.

          Consider, e.g., the 2003 claim that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction.” There are still a lot of people now who believe that, and even more importantly, America got to invade Iraq, seed another twenty years of regional warfare, and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld didn’t go to prison. It’s now an open joke that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and almost everybody knows that it was all a lie. But it doesn’t matter, because the lie accomplished what it was supposed to.

          So too feminism. There is demonstrably no wage gap, and there continue to be demonstrably higher rates of false female claims, female domestic violence and child abuse, etc.–and yet, no one gives a shit, because the overarching narrative that the media presents does not include those topics.

          Ergo it is of no consequence whether something is proven true or false. Politicians and corporate media can stir whatever beliefs they’d like in people, and the majority will follow along.

          TBP: “The media was reporting on it before 1900. Putting that aside, it’s not a conspiracy to have manginas in the media or any place else.”

          There’s a difference between reporting on something and making something a pressing national issue. American slave patrols, then police departments, have been gunning down poor men in the streets for over a hundred years. Yet, why did the particular killing of Mike Brown suddenly become a front page issue for days, then weeks, on end? The media possesses phenomenal power to make things popular, or to bury things in a couple lines on page B17. Women’s suffrage was an “issue” before it was a major issue, but when it was a major issue, it suddenly became something that Congress was willing to consider.

          Right now, there are organizations making news on page B17, discussing the sexual bias of American family courts. But if Rupert Murdoch wanted to, he could make it a screaming national debate inside of a week, by doing special investigations, putting it on the front page for days on end in New York and London, and having every regional affiliate talk about it nightly. There is an immense difference between a news item being accessible to everyone with a newspaper or internet connection, and a news item being major news directed at the majority of the population.

        • while the Duke Lacrosse story is obvious to you (and to the manuresphere), it is not obvious to others.

          Yes, it is. I can find lots of people who know the facts about the Duke Lacrosse story (and UVa). Granted many of those are Republicans and other conservatives who reflexively didn’t believe it because liberals did (and follow a right wing form of manginaism), but they exist and in large numbers.

          while the Duke Lacrosse story is obvious to you (and to the manuresphere), it is not obvious to others.

          And you have actually investigated media from the period to know the difference and identify it the source material? And if so, can you prove that there was something nefarious going on other than a bunch of guys being manginas?

          I don’t deny manginas exist (far from it), but manginas don’t constitute a conspiracy.

        • TBP: “If Harry T. Burn was so concerned about “honoring his mother”, then that just supports my explanation that he was a mangina.”

          If someone offered you five million dollars to claim that you started this blog because your mother had told you to, would you fulfill the deal and become a retired millionaire?

          What may be throwing you off here is that the Congressman in question may have sufficient confidence in himself that he doesn’t care what the commoners say about him so long as he gets paid.

          Maybe his choice is immoral for its dishonesty, but that doesn’t mean he’s a mangina–it just means he’s a liar. Most likely, he spent that money on cocaine, mansions, hookers, and a large trust fund for his offspring.

          TBP: “[G]iving women the vote would be counterproductive to “centralizing banking”…”

          How so? Women have spend the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries offering almost wholehearted support to centralized banking.

          Centralized banking, by the way, isn’t a conspiracy–it’s the global norm. You’ve probably heard about the U.S. Federal Reserve, but have you heard about the U.N.’s International Monetary Fund, and the Bank of International Settlements? These are droll, boring, everyday aspects of professional financial life. They are specifically, publicly, self-avowedly centralized banks.

          And do you know what those centralized banking systems do? They take tax money–again, primarily from laboring men in countries worldwide–and transfer the tax money to politicians who use some of it to fund busywork government jobs, PC legislation, and charities that primarily benefit women (and children taken away from their fathers).

          Centralized banking should be, therefore, of great interest to you. It is what dictates the policies that take money out of your paycheck and give it to single mothers. Without decades of female voters in the United States, centralized banking and the U.N.’s globalization of currency reserves and money transfers would not have been able to occur.

          These are the arrangements that pay for all of the things you decry–the discriminatory laws, the U.S. criminal family court system, the legitimization of the sexist elimination of due process–and so, you should be very much concerned with them.

          In theory, women can be completely responsible for their actions, and can be just as genetically depraved as you argue, and “manginas” can be letting them get away with it, but the how of these things is spelled out, in part, through centralized banking. You needn’t be afraid that learning more about how this works will dampen your ability to condemn women for their role in the process. You might even find that learning more about how these things work will give you greater insight into what many women and “manginas” are doing.

        • And by the way, female suffrage did not “come down” to just Harry T. Burn. That is one variable amidst many. There mere fact that such an issue could hinge upon one person’s vote means that a lot of other votes and support were already there.

          The straw that broke the camel’s back is no heavier than any of the other straws with which the camel is laden. It’s a cognitive bias to assume that the “final straw” was any heavier than all the others that came before.

          Besides, why would you believe that particular politician about the reason he publicly gave for his vote? Do you believe that George W. Bush really wanted to invade Iraq because he prayed earnestly to God, and then heard a voice inside his head telling him it was his duty to liberate the poor Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein?

          If you take politicians and the news media at face value, your problems may run far deeper than feminism.

        • Besides, why would you believe that particular politician about the reason he publicly gave for his vote?

          Because that would make it a really damn stupid lie. Anything would have been better than that.

        • Not at all, given the western historical viewpoint of always honoring one’s mother.

          Even aside from that, his “reason” is a lot better than, “I made a deal with certain influential donors to vote for suffrage in exchange for a hundred thousand pounds sterling” or “Our plan to centralize world banking and hold a new European War requires the plausible transfer of democratic will to female voters.”

          Barack Obama regularly blames Republicans for his policy decisions. Does that mean that it really is the Republicans’ fault when he does something? No–rather, it’s an argument of hypoagency.

          I know you’re intelligent enough to understand such arguments, because you’ve critiqued them in the past. So, when people claim it wasn’t their fault, but their mothers’, that they voted for this or that, you should be able to identify them as liars.

        • Not at all, given the western historical viewpoint of always honoring one’s mother.

          So Harry T. Burn was a fake mangina, but not a real mangina? If Harry T. Burn was so concerned about “honoring his mother”, then that just supports my explanation that he was a mangina.

          Even aside from that, his “reason” is a lot better than, “I made a deal with certain influential donors to vote for suffrage in exchange for a hundred thousand pounds sterling” or “Our plan to centralize world banking and hold a new European War requires the plausible transfer of democratic will to female voters.”

          Neither of those explanations make sense especially since giving women the vote would be counterproductive to “centralizing banking” or whatever else you think they were up to. You might as well have said that aliens told him to do it. And that’s problem. No other explanation has any evidence. Harry T. Burn’s own words may be weak evidence, but weak evidence is superior to no evidence.

  4. I read somewhere that CIA invented the term “conspiracy theorist” themselves.

    I very much appreciate the host’s viewpoints on various topics such as Game and Feminism, but his constant rejection of “conspiracy theories” seem unreasonable to me.

  5. “Neither does it make it false.

    But it must be difficult to adopt an open mind when one is already invested in skepticism.”

    I think you confuse mental illness with an open mind.

    Conspiracy theorists do not have an open mind, they are open to all sorts of ideas, but they are not open to the fact they are wrong on them.

    • Conspiracy theorists do not have an open mind, they are open to all sorts of ideas

      Conspiracy theorists are only open to ideas that fit their narrative. That’s why so many of them hate authentic anti-feminism.

  6. Wasn’t sure where to post this.

    I was just wondering why Futrelle has this site down as a bad on his site. I don’t know much about him, so not sure how people feel about him on here. To be honest, I find some of his posts bashing Roosh downright hilarious.

    He appears to really hate Paul Elam. In fact, some of the Elam bashing is hilarious. I like the fact he bashes idiots I don’t like either.

    One thing that really confuses me is that he has sluthate down as a bad site too. Isn’t like he a poster on sluthate? The guys on sluthate don’t like Roosh, Matt Forney, or other PUA’s he bashes either. I think the sluthate forum is awesome and I’ve posting quite often as “Mitchels” in the bash the scene section.

    I don’t see why people think sluthate is a bad site. Sometimes it can get a little out of hand, but returnofkings, RooshV, or Matt Forney.com are all TERRBILE sites for young men. I think those sites pose a lot of danger for young men!

      • Oh, ok. Didn’t really know much about him. He seems to really hate Paul Elam. They obviously have a history. I don’t know how he gets away with some of his articles. Some of them seem borderline slander/defamation.

        • yes, slander-he takes part of what someone says, then puts his own words behind it then puts a flashing “sarcasm” button for plausible deniability…

          He also likes to bully, shy, sexually unsucessful men by calling them Nice Guys ™

          He is no freind to low status men and neither is an asshat named Jack Donovan-in fact, they both have similar views when it comes to white supremancy…

          A link to his “home grrl” Mandy Marcotte-and don’t you ever critique Mandy because only “misogynists” do that…

          https://dearwhitefeminists.wordpress.com/update/

          But when you explore deper, many feminists have the same attitudes as manospherians…

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