Why my Christian-Muslim alliance won’t work

Objections to my proposed Muslim-Christian European anti-liberal alliance have continued to come in from Marcio Silva, Alan Roebuck, and many others.  Cumulatively, the case they make against the idea is pretty devastating.  I had based the idea on three observations

  1. European Islam has the philosophical and sociological resources to mount a powerful defense/offensive against liberalism if it were to decide to do so.  It has a credible alternate worldview and (unlike European Christianity) the serious loyalty of millions. Liberals would have a far harder time defending themselves against an attack led by the “religion of peace” than one led by the successfully-demonized Christian minority.
  2.  Liberalism, being ultimately subversive of all religions, represents a long-term threat to European Islam, far more so than the pitiful remnant of Christianity on the continent.  Therefore, they have a motive to join with us.
  3. If, in any case, our only choice is what will replace Christianity in Europe, Leftist atheism or Islam, the latter is by far the lesser of two evils.
Against this, several objections were raised.
  1. First, it would mean ceding large areas of Europe to the Muslim Umma, effectively surrendering them forever.  However, I claim this has happened already, so my plan would just mean ceding to the Muslims things we have irretrievably lost already in order to preserve what we can still hope to preserve, namely small autonomous regions for the Christian minority.
  2. Second, it was pointed out that Muslims would likely not not respect the autonomy of Christian areas; once they had sufficient force, they would surely move to complete their conquest.  This is very likely true–history gives us little reason to hope Islam’s lust for conquest can ever be sated–but what it suggests is that my plan might still work as long as a balance of power could be maintained and Muslim areas could be sufficiently deterred.
  3. Third, some worried that an alliance with Muslims would inevitably corrupt us, since it would basically mean that we don’t regard the divinity of Jesus Christ as all that important.  I admitted that this is a valid worry, but there may come a time when this is still the lesser of two dangers.  I note that many of the people who categorically reject a Christian-Muslim alliance think that Christian-Jewish cooperation against Islam is okay.
  4. Finally, some said that all the above is mute, because Muslims would never accept such an alliance anyway.  This, I believe, is the objection on which my plan really does run aground.  Michael, Reggie, and Marcio all reminded me how seriously corrupted (well, I suppose Reggie wouldn’t use that word, but this is a reactionary blog) by liberalism and feminism Islam has become.  The intelligentsia and spokesmen of their communities largely praise liberal principles and make their entire case for special treatment on egalitarianism, anti-communitarianism, anti-colonialism, and the alleged greater liberalism of their religion (history of tolerance, etc) compared to Christianity.  As Marcio points out, there must be already a serious spiritual sickness with a religion that would ally itself so readily with communism so often during the Cold War and with the far-Left ever since.  Muslims are as reliable communist/social-democratic voters as Jews.  In country after country, Catholics and evangelicals have been forced to fight the homosexual agenda with no help at all from the followers of Muhammed.  The Muslim community in Europe is an interest group; it pursues its own power and material well-being, and nothing else.  The fact is that we will never be able to entice Muslims away from the Left by giving them a sweeter material offer.  The European elite has already granted Muslim regions de facto autonomy; they’ve already outlawed criticism of Muslims; they already support culturally suicidal levels of immigration; they already turn a blind eye as the native population is preyed upon by Muslim murderers and rapists.  How can we beat that?
So it would seem that my proposed alliance isn’t going to happen in Europe right now, even if every Christian on the continent were to get on board with the idea.  What the hell are we going to do then?  I don’t know.  Europe may really be beyond all hope.
The reality in Europe may someday change, though.  We shouldn’t imagine that the Leftist-Muslim alliance is a law of nature.  There may someday come an opportunity to drive a wedge between our two enemies.  Nothing would serve Christianity better than to have liberals and Muslims at each others throats (which is where, given their divergent world views, they really belong anyway).  For the time being, the real danger is that Christians will compromise their faith in an overzealous drive for a Christian-Liberal alliance:  declaring gay rights to be a fundamental Christian principle, or other monstrosities like that.  At the intellectual level, where the seeds of the future are planted, a dialogue between Christian and Muslim traditionalists could be fruitful even now–a beginning of the world “virtuocrat” alliance–and I would be pleased to be a part of it.  Surely there are some Muslims who are not pleased with the path their people are taking and the company they’re keeping. We should be looking for these people.
A final note:  I protest against Bonifacius calling me a heretic for entertaining this idea.  It’s just stupid to say that Christendom should be locked into a single strategy for all time.  It’s the duty of Christians to serve the defense of our civilization with our intellect as well as our will.  We should consider all options that don’t violate some established principle of faith or morals.  Nor is it heretical to admire the genuinely admirable aspects of Muslim civilization, and there are many.  A catholic mind should praise the good wherever he finds it.

17 Responses

  1. I feel like Cartman. I kind of want to drink your tears :)~

  2. The reason the Mohammedans embrace the liberals is because the liberals are weak and will cave to them and traditional Christians won’t. The Mohammedans themselves (the more “orthodox” ones, the ones who will overpower the ecumenically-minded tolerant ones if they had the chance) see us and the liberals as in the same category (dhimmi) and therefore prefer decadence among the dhimmi to strength. They desire feminism and leftism *among us* for the same reason the neocons desire feminism and leftism *among them* — to soften “us” up for conquest. Like it or not, the liberals are rebellious children of the West and therefore belong to the West whose framework we are trying to shore up; the Mohammedans are aliens who do not belong and are quite willing simply to replace Western Christian values with their own. The destruction of the Christian West is desired by them both (which is why they support each other), but Mohammedans have precious little in the name of heritage, visceral identification, etc., to persuade them to join us whereas many liberals (as have many Communists) hit a fork in the road and revert to more traditional forms of Christianity. Despite the failure of fusionism and all the Bircher conspiracy-mongering (and here I acknowledge my debt to the John Birch Society for my training as a conservative), there’s a reason why so many great traditionalists and conservatives have been ex-liberals and ex-Communists (think of the early “National Review”), so few (any?) converts from Islam. It’s relatively common for a leftist’s or liberal’s child to convert to Catholicism and traditional conservatism, relatively uncommon for a Mohammedan to convert. A good society from God’s point of view is ultimately one that best facilitates metanoia, not one that is stable in an un-Christian sect. Liberalism’s own weakness is its greatest strength; it’s better for us to reduce as much as possible the stronger contendants on the scene ready to pick up the pieces (vigorous contendants like Islam). If anything, we should be thankful that Islam has been as weakened by secularism as it has been (though we ourselves should not endorse the means themselves as good or as goods), both in the West and the East; we have *nothing* to gain from a strong Islam.

    This is not to say that *some* tactical gains cannot be made, as for instance Islamic scholars deciding that liberalism is stupid and admitting they’d rather see the liberal West subdued to sharia than persist as a multicultural stew with Islam in the mix. But this does not include granting them a “leadership” role — and you did propose that, not merely an alliance — in the Western traditional movement.

    Best,
    Bonifacius

  3. Incidentally, I speak as one who does *not* share the sort of strident anti-Islamism that one can see in the writings of a man like Dr. Trifkovic of “Chronicles Magazine” regarding the late Archduke Otto and Balkan politics. It seems to me that a modus vivendi with Albanian and Bosniak Mohammedans would be preferable to simply expelling them from their homelands (they are natives to the region). So I would support pragmatic accommodations in the former Yugoslavia, let’s say, over the simple replacement of the native Mohammedans by Orthodox Serbs (or Catholic Croats). However, while such pragmatism might have been possible under the Hapsburgs or Yugoslavia (both royal and Communist), in the recent dismemberment of Yugoslavia mutual criminality, radicalism, and the intervention of foreign jihadis may have rendered local accommodationism and tolerance impossible. Suffice it to say, local Mohammedan populations seem to be more pliant, peaceful, and tolerant of their Christian neighbors’ autonomy when they (the Mohammedans) are being ruled by much larger Christian/secular powers (the Hapsburgs, the Yugoslav regimes) who can severely limit their freedom of action and their access to more virulent (i.e. more orthodox, less liberal!) strains of Islam. I am told that the Catholic bishop of Sarajevo (or somewhere else in Bosnia) has lamented the rise of sharia-supporting Islamism there. In the end, I’m not sure one can find very many instances of peaceful coexistence of substantial Christian and Mohammedan populations without one or the other population monopolizing sociopolitical power.

  4. Thank goodness, bonald! About time, I say.

  5. I did indeed say “leadership”. If an alliance of this sort did happen, the Muslims would obviously be the stronger party, so it would be unrealistic and even unfair to expect them to serve as our foot soldiers. (True, right now they’re foot soldiers for the liberals, but that’s because the liberals are the stronger party. If the Left really decided they’d had enough of the religion of peace, all these Muslim immigrants would be on boats home tomorrow.)

    I hope you are right about liberalism being more “curable” than Islam, but I doubt it. I think Leftists or their children converting to traditional Christianity is actually exceptionally rare. In fact, we have no historical precedent for either a mass apostasy from Islam or a mass apostasy from liberalism. So far as we know, they are equally incurable. The evidence we have actually points to liberalism being the stronger contender, since the Muslim population in Europe has been secularized to a far greater extent than the secular population has been Islamized.

  6. Many well-informed observers believe that the rise of radical Islam, at least in the Maghreb and in France sprang from a disillusionment with Marxism and especially with the PCF. The crucial year was 1956, when the French Communist Party effectively disavowed its Arab comrades and expelled militants arrested for supporting the FLN and refused to support calls for disobedience and desertion by French conscripts. It also convinced many former Communists that the PCF was no longer the party of the Resistance.

  7. I’m not sure how “Europe may really be beyond all hope”. What Europe? Large number of east European countries are quite monolithic, openly Christian, and with non liberal societies. Catholic Poland is quite monocultural and with large population of devout Catholics.Orthodox Russia is becoming more and more religious and traditionalist, is also quite anti liberal and with large and self aware reactionary ideology within it. Orthodox Romania also have large number of dedicated Christian population.

    Bonifacius, Bosnia actually have Christian majority, if we combine both Serbs and Croats. Serbs are largest Christian group , and also have large and monolithic autonomy within Bosnia. Croats, on other hand do not have such autonomy, and are dependent on Muslim-dominated Sarajevo government. Muslims seek to destroy this Serbian autonomy, and to have total monopoly in Bosnia, although they are not majority. However they have powerful support from western liberal governments, since we all know how allergic these western liberals are towards existence of any self-aware Christian and traditionalist political entity.

    That’s why Serbs are main target of constant attack of both liberal western media, and Bosnian government, and that’s why people in the West mostly know about Serbian war crimes and ethnic cleansing, and not the others.. But Croats and Bosnian Muslims were also in war in Bosnia, with large number of massacres and ethic cleansing, and there is the fact that Bosnian Serbs were allies with moderate Muslims in western Bosnia. But Bosnian Muslim government do not mention these inconvenient facts, because of pragmatic reasons. While they talk about “multicultural Bosnia”, they are in open and constant war against Bosnian citizens of Serbian nationality. So we have fine example of cooperation with Western Liberals and Islamists against common enemy.

    Mohammedans in Balkans are not natives. Ancestors of these Muslims were Christians, so claiming of “native Mohammedans” is somehow absurd. You should make distinction between religion and nationality. Culture of these Mohammedans is imported culture of Ottoman conqueror. Last Christian king of Bosnia was murdered by Muslim Turks, same Turks who created Bosnian Muslims a.k.a Bosniaks from Bosnian Christian Serbs and Croats. Interesting thing is that last king of Bosnia was last king of Serbia as well. It’s like saying that Islam is native to Spain. And “Bosniak” nationality is newly invention, since being Bosniak or Bosnian is regional identity which Muslims in Bosnia declared as ethnic one.

    As for Hapsburgs, many reactionaries consider their empire as prime example of reactionary state. Problem is that Hapsburgs ruled over two states reactionary, pan-Christian and traditionalist Austrian empire, and nationalistic and modern Austria – Hungary.

    First one, Austrian empire was classical medieval dynastic land, defender of Christianity, with large and loyal population of both Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Actually, Hapsburgs created dominion in Hungary with large help of Orthodox Serbian hussars and nobilty, and their rule in Hungary was saved by Orthodox Russian empire, during Hungarian revolution. Orthodox Serbs also fought on Hapsburg and reactionary side, during Hungarian revolution. Catholic Hungarians and nobility mostly fought against their emperor, and there was even assassination attempt on emperor Franz Joseph, by Hungarian militant. Ultimately, empire was saved from collapse by Orthodox Russia.
    Bosnia, at that time was part of Ottoman empire.

    However, after collapse of Hungarian revolution, Wienna actually rewarded Hungarians, through practical legalization of Hungarian revolution, by giving them ethnic monopoly in eastern parts of empire.
    Austria-Hungary was actually ethnic nationalist monopoly of two nations, Germans and Hungarians. Czechs resisted this strongly.Croatia, for example, was part of Hungary, and was dominated by ethnic Hungarian landlords. Hungarians were rewarded for treason against the crown, while Serbs, for example were punished for their loyalty. Serbia before that also had pro-Austrian dynasty. But later events changed that.

    Feudal autonomy and privileges given to Serbs and other Orthodox Christians in 16 century were abolished, and given solely to Hungarians.
    Serbs in Bosnia created uprising against Ottomans in 19 century, in order to join state of Serbia. However A.H occupied Bosnia to prevent this from happening, and later give privileges to Bosnian Muslims over Christians, in “divide et impera” spirit.
    However, most Bosnian Serbs and some Muslims never recognized Hapsburg rule in Bosnia, nor have pledged loyalty to emperor. This somehow explains assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

    Sorry for the very long post.

  8. Why not play the waiting game? Save up funds for an eventual Christian army (presumably manned mostly by Africans and Chinese given current demographic trends) and then wait for a die down of modern technological civilization.

    Force, time, and the purposeful destruction of historic records is, and will be, the only way modern society is going to be reverted to a Feudal-Catholic model.

  9. There’s also the issue of safety. Given how rampant support for terrorism is among some European Muslims (I don’t know if the situation is the same in America), an alliance with them might increase the risk of another 7/7 or 3/11.

  10. Wrangel, thank you for your reply. I am well aware of most of the information you provided. It is true that Islam in the Balkans is a holdover from the Ottoman days. It is *also* true that most Mohammedans in the Balkans (Bosniaks, Albanians, Pomaks, etc.) are *descendants of native populations.* They are not a foreign *population,* they are not *invaders.* They are there not by right of conquest, or by immigration, but by the fact that their ancestors converted (forcibly or not). So there you get to see what Islam looks like in Europe when it “goes native.”

    The question of Bosnian identity is an old one. It is clear that Bosnia existed as a separate realm prior to the Ottoman conquest. It is clear that there was something that set the Bosnians apart religiously — throughout the Late Middle Ages, the local “Bosnian Church” seems to have subscribed to soem variant of the Bogomil (Bulgarian) sect, which was related to Catharism and Albigensianism. Anyway, the Catholic Church tried repeatedly to bring the Bosnian heretics into line and the second-to-last Queen of Bosnia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Bosnia) died in Rome, deeding her kingdom to the Holy See until such time as any of her descendants return to Christianity. It has been speculated that the Mohammedan population of Bosnia consists primarily of converts from the heretical Bosnian Church which obviously was alienated from Catholics and Orthodox alike and may well have embraced the new sect. (Incidentally, Queen Catherine’s son Stephen Tomasevic, last King of Bosnia and last Despot of Serbia, appealed for papal support and was offered his crown by the Pope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toma%C5%A1evi%C4%87_of_Bosnia)

    Anyway, once the Ottoman Turk rulers departed, one had to deal with the religiously mixed population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yes, the bulk of the population is Christian. However, I have also read that the Bosniak (for what other word shall we use? Mohammedan South Slav from Bosnia?! why not just call them what they call themselves?) population is larger than either the Catholic Croat or Orthodox Serb population considered separately. Plus, unlike either the Croats or the Serbs, the Bosniak Mohammedans have *the center of their population* within Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don’t know what rightly should be done in the Balkans. I know that the Western liberals supported the Bosniaks in a one-sided manner. However, I hold out hope that there was some other solution than a “Greater Serbia” or the simple expulsion of the Mohammedans. Maybe a partition of Bosnia into Croatian and Serbian sectors and the reduction of the Bosniaks to autonomous populations within those two, majority-Christian countries? I don’t know, but unless you think that the mass expulsion or forced conversion of the Bosniaks (who are on their own soil) is the right solution, you have to have some sort of accommodation for their presence in mind. Or not? In that instance, you’d have parallel communities, I imagine, such as Bonald proposed. I’m not sure such a model is any longer possible, but apparently it’s the only alternative to mass expulsion (from one side or the other) and/or conversion. And you’ll note that I ended that passage above on a note of pessimism (more or less).

    Best,
    Bonifacius

  11. “and later give privileges to Bosnian Muslims over Christians, in “divide et impera” spirit.”

    What is the evidence for this alleged Hapsburg preference for Bosnian Muslims over Serbian Christians?

  12. I am not a Christian, but, were I to take that viewpoint, I’d claim that your “temporary” alliance with Islam is exactly what has happened repeatedly in the past, starting in Palestine and Egypt and on through the progressive retreat of the Eastern Empire through to the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. Christians “temporarily” siding with Islam in order to oppose other Christians they considered heretic or otherwise unacceptable were a repeated feature of over a thousand years of history, and at no point did these repeated temporary alliances bear long-term benefits for the ones engaging in them. Islam always took the pot.

    If people can’t learn from that, well …

    Allying with Islam is a non-starter.

  13. Well, to be honest this goes a little off topic, I mostly used some historic examples to show that Hapsburgs were not exactly prime example of Christian dynasty and spirit of nobility, in order to understand Trifkovic’s criticism of late Otto von Hapsburg and his attitude toward Islam. Unfortunately, many people confuse religion with nationality, which also include many Balkan people.

    As for Bosniaks, it’s not true that they have base just in Bosnia. Actually, label “Bosniak” is used now for all Slavic Muslims of former Yugoslavia, which includes regions like Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, regardless of any real connection with Bosnia. This “Bosniak” identity didn’t existed before 1992. There were no Bosniaks in Bosnian medieval kingdom.They changed identity from Serbian/Croatian to “ethnic Muslims” in Yugoslavia to “Bosnians” in Bosnian state. In regional sense, Serbs and Croats are Bosnians, and they existed as such in Bosnia before Islam, and before invention of “ethnic Bosniaks”. It’s like there is Yorkshire nationality, or similar nonsense, and saying that they are older of English and are descendants of Lollards. Islamic authorities wants to further separate Slavic Muslims from their ethnic roots, and thus to prevent any possible return to their former cultural and ethnic identities, which predates Islam and Ottoman rule, with support of Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

    Problem is not expulsion of Muslims in Bosnia or anywhere else, but the fact that Bosnian Muslims (as example), together with help of West do not allow any self determination of Serbs or Croats in Bosnia, and imposed their will onto them. West supports Muslim dominated unitary Bosnia, and any secession of regions with Serbian and Croatian majority from that Muslim dominated state is unacceptable. On other hand, secession of Muslim Albanians from Christian Serbia is not just acceptable, but greatly supported by liberal West. However, Serbian dominated Northern Kosovo is forbidden to secede from Muslim Albanian dominated Kosovo, by the West. So, liberal West support self-determination just in the case of Muslims,and support territorial unity of Muslim-dominated states. Christian states, on other hand, can be divided and reduced ad infinitum. That’s why Muslims and Western multicultural liberals are very close allies. It is actually liberal West that gives Muslims power and support that they would never get by their own effort.

    P.S

    As for Hapsburg’s preference for Bosnian Muslims in Austria-Hungary…
    They continued privileges of Muslims, specially Bosnian Muslim landlords, from Ottoman era. Not only that, but they created special Bosnian Muslim troops of Austro-Hungarian army, and Bosnian Muslim ethnic militia to please them. At that time Serbs had slight ethnic majority in Bosnia, but they were not allowed to have such privileges.
    Anyway, Hapsburgs changed their former policy of defenders and protectors of Christians (regardless of denominations), to hypocritical multicultural and repressive ethnic German-Hungarian oligarchy, with all duplicities of typical multicultural state. That’s why Austria-Hungary was first and prime example of proto-EU and first multicultural state (more than US). Multicultural Austria-Hungary should not be confused with old reactionary Christian Austrian (Hapsburg) monarchy. That’s why Trifkovic criticized Otto von Hapsburg, and some of his attitudes.

    Again, I apologize for long post.

  14. Okay, Wrangel, but these arguments always devolve into such a litany of grievances. Either the Mohammedans of the former Yugoslavia (whatever we call them, whoever they are, whoever has supported them in the past) should ideally be granted some sort of autonomy in their own communities (prescinding from any question of whether they acknowledge the autonomy of others) or else they should not be offered this autonomy. So either the way to accommodate their presence is to try out what Bonald proposed or not. Now, it seems that one could argue 1.) that the attempt to live side by side in post-Yugoslav Bosnia and Herzegovina proves that such an arrangement is simply infeasible, or 2.) it proves that such an arrangement — autonomy and mutual forebearance — was never actually tried. Where do you stand? *Ideally,* if the West butted out, would the result be an accommodation to Mohammedan presence in Bosnia with some degree of autonomy for them in whatever state resulted, or would they simply be one un-organized population in a secular state, or would the likely result be the steady wearing-away/subjection of the Mohammedan presence by various means? Let’s say the Serbs got everything they wanted — what would happen to the Slavic Mohammedans of Bosnia (for I dare not call them Bosniaks) and the Albanians (most but not all of whom are Mohammedan, the remainder being Catholic) of Kosovo? Would the Serbs permit their continued residency in Bosnia and Kosovo or attempt to break them down as communities because they are Mohammedan (or majority-Mohammedan). What would you have the Serbs do if they won? What would *the Serbs themselves do*?

    As for ethnicity and religion, it seems to me that there’s no easy way to split them in the former Yugoslavia. Whatever may have been the case once, over the centuries most *Serbian* Orthodox (it’s an ethnic church, after all!) have come to think that Serb=Orthodox, most Latin Catholics have come to think of themselves as Croats, and most South Slave Mohammedans living in B-H think of themselves, from what I gather, as Bosniak (I will not use “scare quotes”) and not as either Croat (=Catholic, with links to Croatia proper) or Serbia (=Serbian Orthodox, with links to Serbia proper). During the Middle Ages, the area had its own monarchy and its own particular religious tradition; the particularly large Slavic Mohammedan population in the region now seems to testify to this enduring cultural particularity. Beyond Serb and Croat (and beyond Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat), there is Bosnian/Bosniak.

    And thank you for responding to my question about Hapsburg involvement in the region.

  15. Well, again, when we talk about Bosnia, as I know Bosnian Serbs didn’t want majority – Muslim areas in the first place, but wanted to secede their areas from Islamist-ruled Bosnia. While Bosnian Muslims where not so extremist in Yugoslavia, after collapse of communism, radical elements with ties with Turkey and S.Arabia became more prominent in Bosnian government. Moderate Muslims, like Abdic wanted to remain in Yugoslavia, while Islamists, like Izetbegovich (became president of Bosnia) wanted secession, and creation of unitary separate state, ruled by Muslims, which includes Serbian and Croat areas. Bosnian Serbian and Croat leadership, and moderate Muslims in Western Bosnia refused that option, which started Bosnian war. Although Bosnian Croats were war allies with Bosnian Serbs, US and EU forced them to join Muslims against Serbs. Muslim moderates in Western Bosnia remained allies of Bosnian Serbs, and eventually were wiped out. Key figures in the situation are not Muslims in Bosnia, nor Serbs or Croats, but Western powers, who openly support agenda of just on side, and far from being neutral.

    Albanians in Kosovo are almost exclusively and very Muslim. They should not be confused with Albanians in Albania, since many of them there are indeed Catholic and Orthodox.

    Serbian Orthodox Church exist as such since 1920, before that it didn’t exist in such form. First ethnic churches were created by Bulgarians (declared as illegal by ecumenical patriarchate and anathemized) and Romanians (accepted by ecumenical patriarchate). Rest of national Churches were allowed by ecumenical patriarchate, which includes Serbian.
    In the past, there was nothing different between Churches in Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia and even old Romanian, since language was Church Slavonic and service was identical.

  16. Your comments are always worth reading.

  17. Both religions have had any credibility or popularity they once had taken away by the media.In the EU the amount of negative press towards these two religions is on a 98% negative basis.It dosnt take a genius to work out the logical anser,which is that a religious group that is actively against, expoliting for financial reasons or setting the seeds for war is behind this.Its like central European mid 20th century style propaganda but we read it today?????

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: