Tuesday, June 12, 2007 15 Comments

A short history of ultracalvinism

Over the last 50 years, Time magazine has become as stupid as its audience. The unfortunate fact is that anyone in 2007 who reads Time, or any magazine like it - yes, even the Economist - is simply not right in the head. (Sometimes I receive random free issues of the Economist or find a crumpled copy in a cafe, and if I accidentally read a few pages, or worse one of the leaders, I fly into a shrieking rage and have to curl up in the closet for a few hours. This rag, which I have loved since I was big enough to go on the big rollercoaster, is now devoted utterly and irreversibly to the production and distribution of official mendacity.)

However, Time was once run by the Luces and the likes of Whittaker Chambers, and it turned out a word or two in its day. And here's something it gave us on March 16, 1942: American Malvern.

Unfortunately, any slice I could slice from this confection would be unconvincing. The whole thing simply must be read in its natural habitat.

Now isn't that an interesting article?

Don't the phrase "Organized U.S. Protestantism's super-protestant new program" kind of jump out at you there? Especially being as where it is? In the first sentence? After a grand total of six words? "Organized U.S. Protestantism's super-protestant new program?"

It's almost as if, if you were a reader of Time in 1942, and you read an article which used the phrase "organized U.S. Protestantism's super-protestant new program," you'd be expected to have some idea what in the great jumping bejesus it was talking about.

Now if we scan slightly further into the text, we see some names. Who the hell, for example, is John R. Mott? Who sings of John R. Mott today? I have no idea, but apparently in 1942 he was a "well-known layman." Only one rings a bell to me: Irving Fisher. Irving Fisher was a prohibitionist and an inflationist. Pretty much everything that doughboy done was wrong. So already, I am on my guard.

We also see some denominations, or at least institutional affiliations. And one thing we note is that all of these affiliations are essentially "low church" in nature. In the British terminology, if they are not Dissenters they are close. And the British low-church tradition is basically Calvinist in nature.

So we can sharpen Time's wording, and describe this incomparable shindig as not just "protestant" (note the small 'p,' there, and the use of the word as a normal descriptive adjective of public policy, just as one might say "communist" or "liberal" or "fascist"), but in fact "calvinist."

When you change one word it's usually good to change two. So let's define the 2007 descendant of "super-protestant" as ultracalvinist. (Google gave me only four hits for this concoction.) Basically meaning the same thing, but not having any weird connotations of comic-book powers, and allowing for some semantic drift.

I'll let the content of the Time article speak for itself. Clearly, if you have trouble identifying the 2007 equivalent of 1942's "super-protestant," you have some kind of historical disorder. Perhaps you should spend less time watching al-Jazeera. And I also have the sad honor of informing you that Hugo Chavez is not in fact the second coming of Thomas Jefferson. If you disagree, especially if you disagree violently, with these assertions, I will have to suggest that perhaps there are other blogs you could read.

Now how should we classify ultracalvinism? Well, we can start by taking it at face value, or at least trying to. We immediately note that, unlike its equally mysterious ancestor, this "super-protestant" thing, ultracalvinism does not claim to be Christian at all. It usually claims to be secular (whatever that means) or even atheistic, although you will get the occasional Michael Lerner type who defends it as deeply spiritual.

Here at UR we know that theism and idealism are basically the same thing, and anything you can do with one you can do with the other. Just think of them as alternative surface protein variations.

(Any immune response aimed at specific gods (say, Osiris) or ideals (say, Equality, or the Environment) will be evaded almost instantly. Any aimed at all theisms, idealisms, or anything in between, is far too broad and will never work. Any aimed at idealism alone is a great way to cultivate a flourishing crop of theisms. And vice versa. This is why we are not so into the Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris-etc-etc-etc treatment here at UR.)

Ultracalvinism appears to be pretty much the same thing as "Unitarianism" - that is, in the 2007 sense of that word. This is also interesting, because Unitarians of one form or another have been running the US since the day it was born. The doctrines have changed wildly, of course, but this name has not, although now it is not so often used. But - for example - if you can detect any distinction between Unitarian Universalism and "political correctness," for example a proposition on which the two conflict, your eyes are sharper than mine.

Often ultracalvinism even has the sheer, unmitigated gall to present itself as the opposite of Christianity. More broadly, it's a superior revelation of which Christianity, along with all other religions, is a mere anticipation, a kind of lame-ass John-the-Baptist point-the-way figure. Backward people who refuse to accept this inevitable transition are called "fundamentalists." If they do accept it, they are "moderates" or some other term of approbation.

This applies to all religions, of course, not just Christianity. For example, a "fundamentalist Muslim" is a Muslim (if a sort of Ossianistic reconstituted pseudo-Muslim). But a "moderate Muslim" is an ultracalvinist.

It is also interesting to track the relationship between ultracalvinism and Marxism. Is Marxism a branch of ultracalvinism? Or vice versa? Or are they siblings in some sense? Perhaps this is a fun "exercise for the reader."

If the prehistory of ultracalvinism interests you, three books you may find interesting are The War for Righteousness by Richard Gamble, Lincoln, The Man by Edgar Lee Masters, and Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. A good one-piece starter is an old article of Murray Rothbard's which was just reposted by mises.org - World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals.

And there's also the post-history of super-protestantism. A few weeks ago I mentioned a book that I claimed had the best blurb in the history of the solar system. I am now prepared to reveal the identity of this remarkable masterpiece of 20th-century verbiage.

The book was published in 1964, although my edition is from '66, a really beautiful and timeless slipcased edition from Alfred A. Knopf. The slipcase has an elegant modernist three-color design, sea-blue and black and red, with the author's name and the name of the book, and the translators: Leif Sjoberg and W.H. Auden. The dustcover is white linen with no design, and its front shows just the author's name and the title, in large sea-blue italics, and then under this, in large but not tastelessly large serif roman, the quote:

"The noblest self-disclosure
of spiritual struggle and triumph,
perhaps the greatest testament
of personal devotion,
published in this century..."

This is signed, tastefully and simply, in very small italics,

THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW

The book is Markings by Dag Hammarskjöld, and it very much rewards the reader. If not precisely as author, or reviewer (or translator, for God's sakes, what was he thinking? Gee, I can't even begin to guess) intended.

Update: two other interesting books, chiefly notable because they are (like the Schivelbusch) written recently by well-credentialed authors who consider themselves liberal or even socialist, are Authoritarian Socialism in America by Arthur Lipow, and The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America by Richard J. Ellis. And the Bellamy salute is not to be missed.

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You would enjoy the works of Paul Gottfried. He gives a pretty thorough history of the "protestant deformation" which you call ultracalvinism, here. Start with "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt".

James P. Cantrell has interesting things to say about the same topic, although prospective readers are warned that he he is prone to Rebel Yelling.

"Albion's Seed" is an immediate necessity, if you wish to make progress in this field. Some interesting alterations to your BDH - OV system might be occasioned - or not. The topics discussed in "Albion's Seed" may simply provide information about the playing field on which the above groups contend.

Finally, I don't think you're going to make sense of this when the biggest piece in the puzzle is being rather ostentiously omitted. Kevin MacDonald's "Culture of Critique" names at least one power player that is not B,D,H,O, or V.

This is a very interesting site. Please accept my reading recommendations in the spirt of making it more interesting, more explanatory, and more predictive.

I know you don't want violence,and neither do I. But to outwit the violent, without providing a pretext for violence, is very tricky. In order to do so, you may have to undergo some mental violence yourself.

From your description of "changing your own ideology", I know you understand exactly what I am saying.

June 12, 2007 at 2:24 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

Anonymous,

Thanks, I have read Gottfried. I have not read "Albion's Seed," but I at least know I should have. I have not read Cantrell, but I have read a number of people who are prone to Rebel Yelling, such as Clyde Wilson.

My difference with Gottfried, and with most paleoconservatives, is that I see the evolution of Christianity toward ultracalvinism, or multiculturalism or whatever it likes to call itself these days, as perfectly normal and natural. I don't see it as a perversion at all. It is a problem, sure, but there is no obvious line between healthy and cancerous tissue, at least none that is obvious to me as a non-Christian.

I have not read MacDonald's book, but I've read some of his essays. I have the same opinion as John Derbyshire: while I think his work is perfectly respectable, I also think it's wrong.

What MacDonald (and I think you) don't get is that American 20th-century Jewish intellectuals are Brahmin to the core. The intellectual merger between them and the WASP Establishment came entirely on the latter's terms.

If anything it was the Jews who were corrupted by the WASPs, not the other way around. Read Bellamy's Looking Backward. It rules out MacDonald's entire thesis on chronological grounds.

The so-called Judaism of Michael Lerner, for example, is Unitarian pure and simple. Anything it owes to the shtetl is so diluted as to be utterly irrelevant. Being brown or black still gets you Brahmin brownie points, but being named "Cohen" (or "Liu," or even "Khan") gets you nowhere at all. At least when it comes to their own caste, Brahmins are genuinely non-ethnocentric. In anthro terms the Brahmins are a pure fictive-kinship society.

Concluding otherwise is a fatal error. It completely precludes any further progress. It is yet another way of seeing the problem as smaller and easier to solve than it actually is.

It's comparable, for example, to the error of McCarthy and the Birchers, who assumed that because the nascent Brahmins of their generation were sympathetic to communism, they were all working for the Russians. If anything the Russians were working for them.

(Or at least that's how the likes of Alger Hiss or Harry Dexter White saw it, though in reality of course they were the greater fools. But many things about the Cold War make more sense if you see the Soviet bloc as a sort of proto-Third World, a would-be client state of the Western left.)

June 12, 2007 at 6:03 PM  
Anonymous TGGP said...

You usually associate the Brahmins with "mainline Protestantism". Isn't that different from "ultracalvinism" (Fred Phelps is an ultra-calvinist, but certainly not mainline). When I think "mainline" I usually think "Episcopalian" rather than "dissenter", although today and in America I suppose there is little dividing the two.

I first noted this at Gene Expression when I admitted to myself I had stopped believing in God, but I figured it was appropriate enough here to repeat: I had always thought the notion of an "atheist Catholic" to be ridiculous, as I fully bought into the nutty-nerd religious worldview where you have to follow your pseudo-logical premises to extreme ends. After losing faith I found myself an "atheist Calvinist". I feel kinship with Cromwell and the Puritans, even if both led to some lousy outcomes. I hope that isn't a sort of permanent mental damage.

June 12, 2007 at 10:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see it as a perversion at all. It is a problem, sure, but there is no obvious line between healthy and cancerous tissue, at least none that is obvious to me as a non-Christian.

Well, this is the line taken by Nietzche: that in the absence of the long awaited Second Coming, the oft-disappointed faithful eventually opt to bring heaven to earth themselves. In other words, they became Flannery O'Connor's Church of Christ without Christ avant la lettre.

FWIW, I agree with you and Mr. N that secular Messianism grows out of nonsecular Messianism very naturally. As to the 'obvious line' between the two, more later.

Gottfried has two books, "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt" and "After Liberalism". I recommend them, not because I think you can or should be exposed to "paleoconservative" thought, but because Gottfried is an excellent analyst of how Protestantism, with its God of Anger and immense emphasis on personal probity, guilt, examination of conscience, and scapegoating, became "the Protestant deformation" - what you are calling "Progressive Idealism", essentially the inward and characterological qualities of Protestantism (Low Church) into a world after the "death of god". This character style is shared by many Jews (almost all Jews in the political arena to be sure), where it is called tikkun olam, or the repair of the world. So 'ultracalvinism' and 'ultraJudaism', thought they show similar symptoms, have partially separate etiologies. Heine: "What is a Protestant but a Jew who eats pork?"

Without the possibility of personal grace that God affords, however, the whole movement has become more fervent and more desperate. The guilt and anxiety so prevalent in these character styles has had its governer removed (in both senses!) and thus runs free. Communism was a trial run for what's coming, the outline of which I think you anticipate.

Masters called it our "Hebraic-Protestant" heritage: "I am my brother's jailer". Lincoln would be a good example of a man who ditched Christin doctrine and belief, but retained the character style: moralizing and messianic.

I have not read MacDonald's book, but I've read some of his essays. I have the same opinion as John Derbyshire: while I think his work is perfectly respectable, I also think it's wrong.

Culture of Critique is of course the third volume in a trilogy, covering Gentile-Jewish relations over a two thousand year period - well predating WASP/ Jewish frictions in the twentieth century. Derbyshire, whos own review of the book is somewhat suspect, since he essentially comes out and says in his review - in the first paragraph! - that he knows exactly what happens to people who get "The Jew Thing" and that he refuses for this to happen to him.

So, I feel that one can reasonably discount his opinion. It's the equivalent of the POW who is blinking out T-O-R-T-U-R-E while delivering the expected platitudes with the rest of his statement.

As to your opinions of MacDonalds papers, which you suspect are wrong, I would ask: are you totally uninterested in how much corroborating detail has been accumulated? Without at least examining the last book in the series, Culture of Critique, I would suggest that you are not in a position to make that judgement. The centrality of Jews and both their mercantile and messianic interests have been central to the Ango-American tradition since Manasseh ben Israel and Cromwell (and the B of E) in the mid-seventeenth century ... long before Mr. Bellamy.

When you say that I don't see that Jews are wholly Brahmin, that is because I see the Brahmins as a combination of Unitarian, Quaker, and Puritan descendant sects who have been predominant in the Northeast for several hundred years. The question of their capitulation to the Jews is complex one, but not necessarily pertinent. Rather, I see Jewish attachment to American media and financial organs as being central to the story of the United States since just prior the Wilson administration, and I think MacDonald goes some distance towards establishing this thesis, though other authors, especially Cuddihy, are vital to understanding this process as well (the other books in question being Cuddihy's "No Offense: Civil Religion and Protestant Taste", "The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity", and Yuri Slezkine's "The Jewish Century"). There are other substantive works, but these are the basics.

So, I disagree with your diagnosis that Jews are 'Brahmin to the core'. While sharing important behaviors and rhetoric with the groups you call 'Brahmin', their actual goals, preferences, predilectons and even methods are wildly divergent. Only surface similarities remain. George Soros, Norman Podhoretz, Eliot Abrams, Abram Shulsky: in many cases,even the need to impersonate the defunct classes is a vestige of the past.

The intellectual merger between them and the WASP Establishment came entirely on the latter's terms.

If there is an intellectual merger, it is because no other group has the means - intellectual, volitional, or financial - to create, impose and police worldviews on an all but supine society. Modern Brahmin WASPS may be ideologues, but they aren't producing their own ideolgies, and the ideologies they're selling all seem to converge on the idea of rendering Europeans - wherever they might live - as minorities in their own countries. Is this what we would expect from WASPs? And if not, what then is going on?

In your scheme, WASPS and Brahmins and Jews are of an imagination all compact. I would suggest rather that a new group occupying the Principiate will be concerned to maintain an outward show of propriety and connection (top siders and the promulgation of an ideal of civic duty) but in fact, bring very real, and very different goals to the society.

Is this what we are in fact seeing?

June 13, 2007 at 12:35 AM  
Blogger C. Van Carter said...

"but the conference did not veer as far to the left as its definitely pinko British counterpart"

That's terrific.

June 13, 2007 at 11:16 PM  
Anonymous tggp said...

I am generally skeptical of "group selection" accounts, and found myself inclined toward Derbyshire's point of view, though I have not read any of Kevin MacDonald's books (though I have seen some shorter pieces online). A very good piece of writing relevant to the subject that I recommend to everyone is Thomas Sowell's "Are Jews Generic?" from "Black Rednecks and White Liberals". I have hosted it here.

June 14, 2007 at 8:30 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Back to Calvinism and "ultracalvinism" - it seems to me that the defining characteristic of Calvinism is its doctrine of predestination. From this idea - that, before the beginning of time, every life's schedule was laid out in God's plan from cradle to grave, so that free will is an illusion - flows the doctrine of election, namely, that some (few) are predestined to be saved, while others (most) are predestined to be damned, and that nothing a member of either category does in life can change his destiny.

Where is predestination in the modern, post-Christian, :ultracalvinism? Certainly Marxism is deterministic, and Freudian psychology is to a great extent deterministic (since, according to Freud, one's behavior is dictated by one's prior experience) - and Marxism together with Freudianism are two great tributaries to the stream of progressive-idealism. Even so, predestination does not seem to have the high position in present-day progressive-idealism you identify as "ultracalvinist" that it did in the original Calvinism.

It may be that you are using the term Calvinism in a less strict sense and are repeating what Santayana said when he noted that liberalism was no more than Calvinism from which the Christianity had been excised, leaving behind only its smug fanaticism. Of course, he was correct. Lord Macaulay observed that the Puritans suppressed bear-baiting not because of the pain it caused to the bear, but because of the pleasure it gave to the spectators. Certainly we can find many parallel examples of this phenomenon today.

One also finds amongst ideologues, whether of what are commonly understood to be the "left" or the "right," the antinomian assumption that whatever they wish to do, however terrible its consequences for others, is morally faultless. This can be an outgrowth of the doctrine of election - if one knows oneself to be among the elect, then whatever one does cannot possibly undo one's favored status in the sight of God.

James Hogg's "Confession of a Justified Sinner" satirises extreme Calvinism of this sort. The protagonist commits fraud, rape, and parricide (to name only a few) all the while believing that he is doing as God has intended. To use terms that were not current at the time Hogg wrote, our hero was a philosophically sophisticated sociopath. In a society like ours, he might have had a successful career in politics.

June 19, 2007 at 10:31 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

There are many excellent comments on this thread, which unfortunately I was unable to respond to, being on the road! I'll try to get to them tomorrow - some may be addressed on the main stage.

June 20, 2007 at 12:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you enjoyed that article, try some of Chambers' known TIME articles, collected online at a new website, WhittakerChambers.net...

June 21, 2007 at 7:01 PM  
Anonymous bbroadside said...

I've been trying to work through this and figure out your terminology. What you have written on this subject (not just on this post) really rings true, but I'm not sure exactly how ultracalvinism differs from gnosticism as defined by Voegelin. My question is why exactly progressive-idealism is more Calvinist than it is Arminian. By preaching that everyone can achieve grace in their multicultural, scholar-governed heaven on earth, the progressive-idealists sound more like Arminians to me. Then again, I may be reading small ideas of Calvinism and Arminianism and thinking they are the big ideas.

Maybe I'm echoing michael here (having reread him, I guess he sort of beat me to it). While the Protestant homology may be too general (the progressive-idealists don't have much in common with Anglicans or Mennonites or what have you ... not sure about Lutherans), the Calvinist homology may be a little too specific. I like to think of the progressive-idealists as a syncretic mixture of Arminians (everyone can be as tolerant and internationalist as us) and Calvinists (anyone who disagrees with us was destined to do so by the misfortune of their birth).

Furthermore, redirecting Marxist fervor to help the working class through revolution, into Fabian fervor to help the working class through democracy and social science, seems to me like jumping trains from Calvinism to Arminianism. A Brahmin with a major guilt complex may become a Marxist as a way of obliterating the wealth and/or inequality which makes her or him feel so awful. Thank goodness Marx took off the religious clothing so we don't have to wait until certain death to meet our fate, we can just get it over with by speeding up the revolution.

The Brahmin who is a little easier on himself picks social democracy instead - the Arminian path of choosing grace rather than being obliterated in the eschaton. With its insistence that the bourgeoisie would keep their heads on the chopping block rather than share power/wealth, the Marxists didn't appeal so much to the Brahmins who wanted to achieve the eschaton without losing their friends.

A really Calvinist conception of progress seems like it would clash too much with a strong belief in democracy. The Brahmin reformer choosing socialism can always tell himself he's beaten Calvinism by coming around to a democratic, peaceful, warm-welcome of an ideology.

Which is not to say I don't like the term "ultracalvinist" (or "cryptocalvinist"), just that my jury is still out.

July 14, 2007 at 4:22 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 5:43 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 11:32 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 7:39 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 7:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

~「朵語‧,最一件事,就。好,你西

March 6, 2009 at 9:36 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home