Monday, May 14, 2007 25 Comments

Idealism is not great

I have a standing offer of a bottle of Laphroaig for anyone who can supply me with an objective and nontrivial explanation of any distinction between the nouns idealist and ideologue as used in the contemporary English language.

Explaining that conservative ideologues are a dime a dozen, as are progressive idealists, but there are somewhat fewer progressive ideologues and it is almost impossible to find a conservative idealist even when you really need one, will not get you the whisky.

However, there's another meaning of idealist in English - a historical one. Idealism is actually a philosophical school. Or rather a number of philosophical schools. I find the term most useful as it pertains to the line from Plato to Hegel to Emerson to Dewey. (It sometimes helps if you think of them as evil kung-fu masters.)

Let's capitalize the word Idealist in this sense, so that we know we don't just mean a nice person who thinks the world could be improved.

An Idealist is a person who believes that universals exist independently. Specifically, in the modern sense, your Idealist believes in concepts such as Democracy, the Environment, Peace, Freedom, Human Rights, Equality, Justice, etc, etc.

What do these concepts have in common? One, they have universally positive associations. In fact they have no meaning without these associations. A statement such as "the Environment is evil" or "we must work together against the Environment" is simply not well-formed. It is the equivalent of Chomsky's "colorful green ideas sleep furiously."

Two, they are impossible to define precisely. It's fairly clear that they have no meaning at all.

For example, John Rawls wrote a whole book called A Theory Of Justice which purports to be a rigorous rational derivation of the New Deal regime. The fact that this work appeared in the 1970s, whereas the coup it exists to excuse occurred in the 1930s, should clue you in to the difficulty of Rawls' masterful performance. Of course, the Justice that Rawls so elaborately elucidates has nothing at all to do with the original English meaning of the word justice or its Latin basis, that is, the accurate application of the law. Rawls' ideal is probably best given in pre-Rawlsian English as Righteousness.

But it would be rather hard to call a book A Theory Of Righteousness without provoking at least a snicker or two. We all know there is no objective definition of Righteousness. And in fact, if anyone can go through the Federal Register with a red pen and explain which of these wonderful regulations are and are not Just, according to Rawls' "theory," he or she may earn that bottle of Laphroaig after all. (Just a page or two will do - to demonstrate the method.)

The case of the Environment is similar. We all know sort of what the Environment is supposed to be. But as with Justice, we don't have anything like a precise, objectively applicable rule for defining whether some action is good or bad for the Environment. For example, if we sell Golden Gate Park to Halliburton, as a combination condo subdivision and oil-services theme park, and give the resulting ninety billion dollars to the Wilderness Society so they can buy the entire island of Borneo and preserve it as orangutan habitat forever, is this good or bad for the Environment? Discuss.

This bizarre system of thought, which I hear may actually earn a mention in the DSM-V, is also entirely incapable of advising us on what to do when these ideals conflict. For example, suppose some action improves the Environment, but diminishes Justice? Or vice versa? Is this a good action, or a bad action? Discuss.

Idealists also recognize what might be called anti-ideals. These are just like the above ideals, except that instead of being good, they are actually bad. They have names like Violence, Inequality, Racism, and so on. One interesting quirk of Idealistic thinking, is that while ideals are typically used only as objects in the strange sentences these people form - such as "we must preserve the Environment" - the anti-ideals can be subjects, such as "Violence killed thirteen people in Iraq on Sunday." Apparently this sort of universal not only exists independently, but buys explosives and plants them in dead goats - a remarkable feat for any concept.

A little while ago I explained that religion, if we define it as a system of belief involving anthropomorphic paranormal entities, cannot directly affect reality. A belief about the paranormal world can be the ultimate motivation for an action in the real world, but it cannot be the proximate motivation for an action in the real world.

A long string of recent books, by very distinguished thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett, have informed us that religion is, basically, evil. That is, that the optimal level of religion in society is like the optimal level of mercury in your milk: zero. Since I have no beliefs about the paranormal plane myself, I am naturally quite sympathetic to these volumes.

However, consider the form of such a book. Typically it is a list of great historical crimes, together with explanations of how religion was the ultimate cause of such and such a crime.

Naturally after reading such a book, one feels slightly jaundiced toward religion. But of course an argument of this sort, even if all of its history is perfectly correct (which it usually is), goes nowhere at all toward convincing any reasonable person that religion is some unique peril.

For example, one could assemble a similar book consisting entirely of crimes committed by Jews. Or Norwegians, or Inuit, or Buddhists, or brown-haired people, or any nontrivial set of humans past and present. Even if such a text made no connection at all between the Inuit upbringing of the criminals it rightly condemned, and the fact that their victims were so often found with gaping harpoon wounds, the reader would probably infer one, and come to the conclusion that these Inuit criminals should have their children confiscated and sent to special educational centers where they learn only love for the walrus and for the whale.

The inductive method, in other words, is simply not applicable to the task of discovering essential criminality in philosophies or traditions.

But since philosophies and traditions, whatever their criminal or non-criminal nature, do seem to have a suspicious involvement in the tremendous mayhem of history, perhaps it's worth looking around for another culprit.

My hypothesis, which any brave commenter is welcome to take a whack at, is that whether or not religion is the ultimate cause, the proximate cause of mayhem is generally Idealism. That is, when there is a problem with religion, in general the way the problem happens is that religion leads to Idealism, and Idealism leads to mayhem.

But since Idealism is perfectly capable of existing without religion - since, for example, most of your recent mayhem has been the result of nontheistic Idealist movements such as National Socialism and Marxist-Leninism - perhaps Messrs. Dawkins, Hitchens, etc, with all due respect, are chasing the tail and ignoring the dog.

In fact, if the type of Idealism that is caused by religion is actually milder and less murderous than the nontheistic variants - a hypothesis that's not at all improbable, considering modern history - attenuating religion may actually promote mayhem.

(Obviously this is a desperate plea for Andrew Sullivan to link to me again.)

Perhaps this week we'll look a little more closely at some of these murderous Idealisms...

25 Comments:

Anonymous smb said...

I can't resist, given the prize:

idealist - one who hopes

idealogue - one who knows

May 15, 2007 at 12:09 AM  
Anonymous smb said...

Both, of course, are equally evil.

May 15, 2007 at 12:17 AM  
Blogger Victor said...

Idealist is one who is interested in their ideals at the expense of pragmatic concerns.

Ideologue is one who believes that their ideals in some way express or encompass the pragmatic concerns.

In short, ideologue is an idealist who believes he is a pragmatist.

All IMO of course.

May 15, 2007 at 6:14 AM  
Anonymous Stirner said...

Very nice - you seem to be approaching intellectual territory explored by my namesake.

"Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head! You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons you. You have a fixed idea!"

His conception of ideals as sacred "spooks" seems related to your current line of inquiry. Perhaps Max Stirner was a formalist?

May 15, 2007 at 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Plato was certainly an idealist in the strict philosophical sense of the word , since he enunciated the doctrine of ideals. It is central to his epistemology. On the other hand he is an Idealist in your sense, since the "Republic" and the "Laws" project (different) ideal states.

An ideologue is one who tries to bring about in practice the ideals formulated by the idealist. Plato was not an ideologue. Neither the Republic nor the Laws carry any obvious suggestion on his part that they represent feasible political goals, and there is no evidence that Plato ever tried to influence Athenian society to adopt them as such.

Marx, by contrast, was both an idealist and an ideologue, since he not only devised a recipe for an ideal society but endeavored to realize it.

Most of his followers, be they the apparatchiks of the former Soviet state or the large numbers of American academics who style themselves Marxists, were and are merely ideologues, since they have contributed little or nothing new to the theory. Their efforts have been those of propagandists and enforcers, almost entirely as practitioners rather than as theorists.

May 15, 2007 at 10:44 AM  
Blogger The Gay Species said...

Rawls' Theory of Justice was all the rage, until philosophers asked how is "a veil of ignorance" possible, for beginners. His Kantian Politics exceeded Hyper-Rationalism's greatest extremes, making impossible demands, and those Kantian Categorical Imperatives started populating without population control. He's since "revised and extended his remarks," but I doubt anyone cares.

Down Harvard's hallways, Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia faired a bit better, a libertarian manifesto. Nozick has "revised and extended his remarks" too, recognizing reductionism may be fine for analytic statements and scientific experiments, but not for a socio-political treatise. In many ways, he become more Hayekean, while positing some rather radical changes (like inheritances).

As a LIBERAL, I'm obviously idealistic. As an HUMAN, I try to be pragmatic and flexible. But I am INTOLERANT of INTOLERANCE, and ideologies of every stripe -- whether Marxist, Freudian, Evangelical, Deconstructionist, etc. -- deny the CENTRAL fact staring us all in the face, and confirmed by Darwin and his heirs. HUMANS ARE DIVERSE. The Universe is diverse.

As Plato's Big Lie was exposed in Harvard's biology department in the 1970-90s, "essences" are someone else fictive epistemology to "define" away those differences. The essence of SIN defines Christian anthropology. The essence of "dialectical materialism" defines the inexorable destiny of the Communist Utopia.

It's one thing to espouse IDEALS, it's another to preach an IDEOLOGY. I hope for a better society based on the Enlightenment's liberal ideals, but NO IDEOLOGY will make it more likely. That was Rawls' mistake. Liberal principles were insufficient, he believe, they needed a theoretical architecture to make them cohere. A theory of justice.

The Enlightenment knew better. DIVERSITY prevents such a theoretical architecture from cohering without becoming grotesquely absurd. Rather than over-laying some metaphysical template, DEAL with what's real. We are a DIVERSE species with DIVERSE features and properties that resists CONFINEMENT by essential definitions. Not to metaphysicians, we're not. They know our "essence," and can improve our perfectability by rational calculus. We never learn.

May 15, 2007 at 11:18 AM  
Blogger dearieme said...

I can explain the difference between "contemporary" and "current".

May 15, 2007 at 12:39 PM  
Anonymous George Weinberg said...

An Idealist is a person who believes that universals exist independently.

I think it's impossible to avoid a certain degree of idealism in this sense and avoid falling into nihilism. It's one thing to accept that we'll probably never have anything like universal agreement on questions of right and wrong. It's something quite different to assert that there is no right or wrong, just individual conceptions of right and wrong.

May 15, 2007 at 1:00 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

michael -

Plato famously went to Syracuse to be the chief philosopher of Dionysius II. The relationship did not work out well.

To be sure this involved a bit of traveling, but Plato's involvement in Athenian politics must have been nontrivial - after all, his mentor was the victim of a political execution, and two of his uncles were I believe among the Thirty Tyrants.

(All the good dirt on Plato is in Popper's Open Society And Its Enemies - I mean, of course, volume I ("Plato"). Popper's economics was not strong and his volume on Marx is not as good.)

May 15, 2007 at 6:44 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

George,

I think you can build a working society whose only definition of "wrong" is breaking one's word - ie, the Roman principle of pacta sunt servanda.

Granted, most reasonable people would agree with you and not with me.

May 15, 2007 at 6:46 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

GS,

Diversity for me is all about decentralism. I am with Nozick on this one.

One good way, probably the best way, to compare the quality of two systems of government is to set them up next door to each other, and look at the migration flow between them.

I don't think a Rawlsian government can survive this test. I think it needs to rule the world. And Nozick has his flaws, but at least he can write...

May 15, 2007 at 6:50 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

I am sorry that the bottle of Laphroaig cannot at this time be awarded. (I have purchased it, however, and will hold on to it in case of any emergency.)

The suggestion that an idealist, small-i, is genuinely convinced that his or her ideals are not pragmatic, or not interested in putting them into practice, fails for me on the "idealists" of the '60s. (If you doubt this conclusion, watch the first 20 minutes of Zabriskie Point.)

May 15, 2007 at 6:53 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

stirner -

Your namesake is definitely an interesting character who I don't know much about. Can you recommend any single work or review?

dearieme -

Don't be such a tease! Correct me and be done with it. But I hope you're not thinking of the difference between contemporaneous and current.

(My problem is that I always want to say "modern." But this word makes me think of Gertrude Stein and A Moveable Feast. So...)

May 15, 2007 at 6:57 PM  
Anonymous Stirner said...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/
Is an in-depth overview of Stirner's thought.

This is a chapter on Stirner in a broader work, but it has a strong focus on the role of fixed ideas:
http://tinyurl.com/3bux79

May 15, 2007 at 10:01 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

Interesting.

I'm afraid I would not agree with Stirner's concept of "self-mastery," at least as summarized in the review, seeing as it conflicts with pacta sunt servanda on account of Stirner's refusal to allow the present self to bind the future self. However, Stirner in this has good company with the modern libertarians, and the mainstream paternalistic liberals. It is my position, not his, that's arcane.

Stirner also seems to have struggled considerably to extricate himself from what he identified, quite rightly in my opinion, as a post-Christian morass of Idealist metaphysics. From the review it doesn't strike me that this struggle was entirely successful.

If there is a bright side to the violence of the 20th century it's that it forced a lot of Continental intellectuals to think in a clear, down-to-earth manner for the first time since the rise of maniacal, post-Bonapartist nationalist democracy. As far as I'm aware there is simply no 19th-century Popper or Mises - at least not east of the Rhine. It is hard to hold a figure like Stirner, or even Nietzsche, to this standard. It is like reading Victorian poetry. Again, at least for me.

May 16, 2007 at 12:02 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

btw, smb - I don't know if I properly considered your entry. The problem is that you have inverted the usual polar association of the words, quite delightfully but not quite objectively...

May 16, 2007 at 12:04 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

You are right that Plato advised Dionysus II, and that he was apparently sympathetic to the aristocratic faction at Athens, but neither of these points necessarily relates to his philosophy. Is there any evidence to suggest that Dionysus or the Thirty Tyrants attempted to follow either the Republic or the Laws in the formulation of their policy?

Because the Republic and the Laws differ from each other it is almost impossible, based solely upon a reading of them, to say what Plato's practical politics were or how they had to do with either of those works. As for the cause of Socrates' condemnation, he left no writings. The portrait given of him by Xenophon is so different from that presented by Plato, that if the works of Plato had not survived we should probably not perceive him as we do. The only certainty is that Socrates of Plato's works is a mouthpiece for Plato's philosophy. That Plato was an idealist we can know from his writings; whether he was an ideologue is a matter of speculation.

I don't propose that the idealist must be "genuinely convinced that his or her ideals are not pragmatic..." but only that there need be an absence of significant effort on his or her part to put them into practice.

For example, consider the Communist parties in Western Europe during the period of the Cold War. Certainly they had their hard cores of genuine ideologues, but they included far larger numbers of hangers-on who never had any intention of actually living in Communist societies, which they could easily have done by settling to the east of the Iron Curtain, nor any real hope that such societies should be established in their own countries. With the fall of the Soviet Union which had propped them up, these parties collapsed and their former members drifted to other leftist parties or otherwise out of politics entirely. What would you call these people?

As for the 'sixties "idealists," a few combined the functions of idealist and ideologue in the manner of Marx (this was certainly the case with Marcuse), but most of them were simply ideologues of the lowest common denominator, parroting the lessons taught by their mentors, typically "dumbed-down" to the level of slogans such as "hey hey ho ho Western Civ has got to go" or "Ho Ho Ho Chih Minh, Viet Cong are going to win." Such devotion to the cause was rarely shown by those who didn't have a papa who supported them in their idleness. Those who haven't died or gone insane from venereal disease or too much dope now unfortunately dominate our university faculties. It is too pitiful for words.

May 16, 2007 at 3:41 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

michael -

Your comment is interesting but your stab at the whisky availeth not. Your definition of "idealist" and "ideologue" is certainly more useful than the objectively synonymous, politically polarized definition that I see people using. But what I don't see is any evidence that anyone but you uses the words this way. I remain open, however, to being convinced...

For all the reasons you cite, knowing much about the political lives of the philosophers is tough. I am not a classical scholar, and I was quite surprised when I learned from Popper of Plato's divergent representation of Socrates.

But in any case, we do know that Plato - and probably Socrates - was politically active. I think of what I'd call political quietism, your definition of "idealism," as quite alien to the participatory culture of Athens.

Quietism and conviction are a rare combination in general. During the period of political rage in the '60s and early '70s, people who weren't "doing something" felt genuinely bad about themselves. Over time they realized that very few had a chance to actually "do something," whatever that something was, and they chilled out a bit. But I'd argue that most still would have lent a hand if they got the chance.

Compare your Communist idealists to all the right-wing "impeach Hillary" ideologues. Most of these people weren't doing much, either, but I think few described them as idealists. So I'm afraid I still find the synonymous, polarized definition most compelling as a description of usage in modern English.

May 16, 2007 at 9:47 PM  
Blogger Conrad H. Roth said...

I'm sad to have missed this one.

"An Idealist is a person who believes that universals exist independently."

And as Popper ironically noted, these persons are also called Realists.

"Because the Republic and the Laws differ from each other it is almost impossible, based solely upon a reading of them, to say what Plato's practical politics were or how they had to do with either of those works. As for the cause of Socrates' condemnation, he left no writings. The portrait given of him by Xenophon is so different from that presented by Plato, that if the works of Plato had not survived we should probably not perceive him as we do. The only certainty is that Socrates of Plato's works is a mouthpiece for Plato's philosophy."

I mostly agree with this. My First Rule of Studying Plato (this also applies to Pythagoras) is: there are no certainties. The last one you mention has always been hotly debated, and the standard line is that the early dialogues represent the real Socrates, and the late ones are Plato himself. But this depends on a prior-established dating of the dialogues themselves, a dating which itself is reasonably tenuous: reading Ryle on Plato (an excellent book) is enough to show that one can draw opposite historical conclusions from the same data. Popper's assertions about the divergence between Plato and Socrates are nothing more than plausible speculations designed to suit his own rhetorical end. (As my father, who knew Popper, tells me, nobody was more totalitarian and unreasonable about his own ideas than Popper himself.) As for Xenophon, someone said that his Socrates was just too boring to be executed. And then there's the best Socrates of all: Aristophanes'.

It is definitely true that Plato's practical politics cannot be decided on the basis of his writings--and even the info on his trip to Syracuse depends on not very reliable sources, eg. the Letters, whose genuineness can never be proved or disproved, and Diogenes Laertius, writing 600 years later, and whose reliability is very difficult to gauge. My own humble opinion is that the Republic is essentially ironical, an exercise in dreaming an allegorical city according to the structure of the soul, whereas the Laws represents a more rounded and considered political system, complete with amusing remarks on enforced drunkenness and nude house-searching.

May 17, 2007 at 4:16 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

Conrad -

It's always nice to have a real scholar butt in! Thanks.

May 17, 2007 at 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tibia money tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape money runescape gold runescape gp runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling cheap rs2 powerleveling runescape equipment buy rs equipment runescape runes cheap rs2 runes runescape logs cheap rs2 logs runescape items buy runescape items runescape quest point rs2 quest point cheap runescape questpoint runescape gold runescape items runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape accounts runescape gp runescape accounts runescape money runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling tibia gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas wow power leveling wow powerleveling runescape questpoint rs2 questpoint Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling Hellgate money Hellgate gold buy runescape logs buy rs2 items cheap runescape items Hellgate London gold Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape items rs2 accounts cheap rs2 equipments lotro gold buy lotro gold buy runescape money buy runescape gold buy runescape runes lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling eve isk eve online isk buy runescape power leveling rs2 power leveling tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts Fiesta Silver Fiesta Gold SilkRoad Gold buy SilkRoad Gold Scions of Fate Gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium SOF Gold Age Of Conan Gold AOC Gold ArchLord gold tibia money tibia gold runescape accounts runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling buy ArchLord gold DDO Plat Dungeons and Dragons Online Plat

September 3, 2008 at 7:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,充氣娃娃,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,成人交友,嘟嘟成人網,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人小說,成人文章,成人圖片區,免費成人影片,成人遊戲,微風成人,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,情色文學,情色交友,色情聊天室,色情小說,一葉情貼圖片區,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,情色視訊,情色電影,aio交友愛情館,言情小說,愛情小說,色情A片,情色論壇,色情影片,視訊聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,視訊美女,視訊交友,視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,AIO,a片下載,aV,av片,A漫,av dvd,av成人網,聊天室,成人論壇,本土自拍,自拍,A片,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情人節,情惑用品性易購,生日禮物,保險套,A片,情色,情色交友,色情聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色小說,情色視訊,情色電影,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,,視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,情人視訊網,視訊交友90739,成人交友,美女交友

November 6, 2008 at 6:12 PM  
Blogger 信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,

January 31, 2009 at 11:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

March 2, 2009 at 7:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

March 2, 2009 at 7:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home