Friday, April 27, 2007 33 Comments

The essential idea of leftism

The people cry out for shorter, more controversial posts!

The essential idea of leftism is that the world should be governed by scholars.

(By "scholar" what I mean is, of course, "intellectual." But I don't like this word, for the same reason I don't like the word "liberal" - it makes me sound like Rush Limbaugh. Once any collective description acquires negative connotations in anyone's mind, it is no longer useful. Also, note that there is no meaningful distinction between a scholar and a priest.)

Can anyone find an exception to this rule - ie, a mass movement that is generally described as "leftist," but which does not in practice imply the rule of scholars, or at least people who think of themselves as scholars? Your comments, as always, are welcomed with enthusiasm.


Anonymous PA said...

Is your comment limited to the Western context, or do you consider Sharia societies leftist as well?

April 27, 2007 at 3:27 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


An interesting question!

I don't think I would go so far as to try to turn "leftism" into an exclusive description in this sense. All cats have four legs, but not all quadrupeds are cats.

That said, it's an interesting analogy and one I'll try to explore in future. There are certainly very real historical connections between leftism and both the modern (Salafist) and premodern versions of Sharia.

April 27, 2007 at 4:12 PM  
Blogger jhorgan said...

The essential idea of leftism is that the power and resources of the state can be harnessed and employed for good; the good of individuals and the whole society.

April 27, 2007 at 4:17 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

Wrong. Maoism has no use for scholars. Also consider anti-colonialism among indigenous peoples who reject the Eurasian intellectual tradition, and the anarcho-primitivist strain of Green/Gaia-ist ideology.

April 27, 2007 at 5:02 PM  
Anonymous PA said...

There is a thin line separating the scholar from the brute. A Rubashev will always morph into a Gletkin.

In other words, one can define Leftism as a political philosophy, or as a power grab dressed in lofty slogans.

April 27, 2007 at 6:20 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

Steve - if Maoism had no use for scholars, how do you explain the "works of Chairman Mao"? Granted, he certainly had no use for scholars who disagreed with him. But all the Marxist-Leninist bigs were credited with a prodigious literary output, and all with a very few exceptions had backgrounds as student activists.

jhorgan - exactly. And who does the harnessing and employing? Certainly not politicians, generals, or CEOs...

pa - someone knows more Soviet history than me! But I get your drift...

April 27, 2007 at 8:24 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

But Mao never claimed to be a scholar. The Red Book is not a scholarly work - not in intent, nor in content.

Remember that Mao went swimming in the rivers of China for the purpose of propaganda. According to Maoism, the *praxis* of swimming, of exercising one's body to do revolutionary work, was far superior to a lifetime of idle scholarship under the old regime. According to Maoism, all scholars are wrong *because* they are scholars.

April 28, 2007 at 12:48 AM  
Blogger ither said...

I think this is rather meaningless. By 'scholar' you seem to mean a scholar in a classical Chinese sense, a mandarin. Accordingly, a 'priest' is a mandarin theologian believing in a specific system of thought subject to canonization. The other meaning is simply that of a facilitator of ritual.

In any case, I don't think such analogies are very useful. They leave one craving more of Moore.

April 28, 2007 at 2:06 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

Hey man, I thought I was right up your alley with Rubashev and Gletkin!

They're from Arthur Koestler's classic "Darkness at Noon".

April 28, 2007 at 3:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intelectuals have been mainly the leaders of communist left.
Those of the social democratic parties were mostly working class. Hence the difference.

PS: Great blog

April 28, 2007 at 4:05 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


Doh! I'm afraid the generalist's all-encompassing erudition always has a bit of the matte-painting quality to it. One of the many important books I should have read and haven't...

April 28, 2007 at 9:39 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


Have you read Chang and Halliday? The portrait of Mao is pretty unforgettable.

My post might make more sense if you read "scholar" as "thinker." I was simply looking for the word with the strongest possible positive connotation. I have not actually read Mao himself, but when he talks about "scholars," one assumes he means classical Chinese scholars of the tradition ither is discussing, in which case your remark (like ither's) is accurate but directed at a narrower point than that which I intended to make.

April 28, 2007 at 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Tex said...

"The essential idea of leftism is that the world should be governed by scholars"

A provocative thesis.

But as a student Kuehnelt-Leddihn you are aware that the nomenclature of "right" and "left" find their origins in the arrangement of political factions in the National Assembly of France during the French Revolution.

Just as sitting on the left side of the theater means you can not simultaneously sit on the right, the only thing essential about "the left" is that it is not "the right". The only thing essential about "the right" is that it is not "the left".

Think of "the right" and "the left" as two warring armies. Each army is made of coalitions. The armies advance and retreat on the field of battle, cede territory to each other. Coalition members will occasionally defect. These maneuvers explain why "the left" of a prior era will occasionally look like "the right" of a latter era and vice versa.

For concrete and quantifiable examples of "the right" and "the left", consider the two main political parties in America: Republicans and Democrats. Or for a more topical example with a more direct etymological geneology, consider the two main political parties that are currently contending for priority in the latest elections in France.

But the question remains, has scholar-ocracy been a consistent theme among the various coalitions that have occupied the left side of the territory between now and the French Revolution?

As a disciple of Throne and Alter, Joseph de Maistre was a "man of the right". As a disciple of Nature and Equality, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a "man of the left". Between the two, who would have been more likely to assert that people should be ruled by scholar-priests?

April 29, 2007 at 1:14 AM  
Blogger dearieme said...

Didn't the Khmer Rouge set out to murder all scholars, the effect, no doubt, of Pottist training?

April 29, 2007 at 4:11 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

tex -

You make good points.

Obviously, since a scholar as great as K-L wrote an entire book on the subject, any one-sentence definition is going to lose a little nuance.

(It's interesting to watch the price of Leftism Revisited going up as K-L's stock rises. I think I paid about $30 for mine, and that was less than a year ago. It's nothing, though, compared to this - which I got a couple of months ago, and I don't recall what I paid but it certainly wasn't anything like $64.97. Surely, this is progress.)

I have not read Maistre, but from what I recall he was a monarchist, not a Jesuit. Of course the clergy had a significant role in all the old dispensations of Europe. But it was by no means an exclusive role. (Perhaps one of the most interesting cases of leftism avant la lettre, a forerunner of the modern world in so many ways, was the Jesuit state in Paraguay. I don't know that there is any satisfactory historical treatment of this bizarre episode.)

But in any case, my general answer is that I was offering a definition of leftism, not of rightism. Ultimately I have to disagree with K-L: I don't think the terms left and right are useful in the modern world. But if I had to pick one, I'd pick left, because "rightism" has just come to mean any doctrine that varies from orthodox leftism. Surely any category that can contain, however spuriously, both Maistre and Gingrich, is not useful.

April 29, 2007 at 11:13 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


Indeed he did, and indeed as I'm sure you know the KR elite were scholars themselves (educated in France).

What else should we expect from academic politics in the real world? No doubt if entomologists ruled, the ant men would have it in for the beetle men, and both would feel nothing but contempt for the butterfly-chasers of yore.

Credal factions, in other words, always splinter like crazy. It's only with ethnic politics that caste solidarity starts to actually work. And even then, traitors are toast. The Hutu Power forces, if anything, may have been most concerned about getting rid of the "moderate Hutus."

April 29, 2007 at 11:21 AM  
Blogger Victor said...

Nestor Makhno -- "Bat'ko Makhno" -- organized a short-lived anarchic society in Ukraine during the Civil War. He was a leftist, an anarchist, and he was not a scholar.

April 30, 2007 at 8:02 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

No, Makhno was just a gangster. This may have had something to do with his lack of success.

I don't know much more about Makhno than what you wrote, and I trust La Wik about as far as I can throw it, but the entry also paints a suggestive portrait of what I suspect was probably a jailhouse intellectual conversion. For sure, his peasant parents didn't raise him as an anarchist.

Stalin also wasn't much of a scholar. The combination of scholar and gangster, at its worst, was sort of like being a "student-athlete" in an American high school - it doesn't mean you have a 4.0 and 1500 SATs, and also play a little tennis.

But note that the power of the General Secretary decreased over time in all Communist regimes, in favor of the nomenklatura, who were of course identical with the educated class (Djilas's New Class). I think it's fairly clear that Stalinism, and gangster rule in general, is best regarded as an unintended consequence of Marxist-Leninism. When Marx used the words "dictatorship of the proletariat," it's a safe bet that Stalin wasn't exactly what he had in mind.

April 30, 2007 at 6:55 PM  
Blogger Das said...

I'd like to recommend a couple books by Eric Hoffer: "First Things, Last Things" and "The Temper of our Time."

Hoffer was fascinated by the scholar's (intellectual’s) unyielding hatred for America - he thought about it from every angle - never quite coming up with a definitive explanation.

He thought that sputnik affair inadvertently washed many business types (or men of action) into the humanities. When the 60s came along the lure of activism was too much for these types to resist, trading in scholarly quietism for politics.

He also proposed that intellectuals (except for the founders) had never really been integrated into the bulk of American life - business America paid little attention to them and kept them away from power. The 60s kicked open the door for American intellectuals to get a taste of power for the first time.

Can't recommend his books highly enough.

Meantime while American engineers were putting men on the moon we had Susan Sontag saying, "the quality of American life is an insult to the possibilities of human growth." If you don't hear a bloody minded scholar/commissar behind that statement you are deaf.

May 1, 2007 at 2:26 PM  
Blogger The Social Pathologist said...

Wrong Menicus. The essential idea of leftism is the perfection of man. It is a repudiation of the doctrine of original sin. The mechanism of perfection is through the action of secular government.

May 1, 2007 at 3:27 PM  
Anonymous SFG said...

Two words: labor unions.

Not too many scholars there, and they're pretty left-wing.

May 1, 2007 at 4:14 PM  
Anonymous SFG said...

OK, I'm a liberal, I'll try.

The essential idea of leftism is a suspicion of inequality.

No, think about it. Liberals always see them(our)selves as raging against some power group or other--businesses, men, whites, Christians, etc.

May 1, 2007 at 4:42 PM  
Anonymous mr tall said...

No, this is not yet the heart of leftism. To understand it best, it's necessary to recognize it as a Christian heresy. Leftism seeks to immantize the eschaton.

In other words, the goal of leftism is to try to force the eschaton -- the goal of history, i.e. the perfect reign of Christ, aka Heaven -- to be made manifest not in a new creation, but here and now in our earthly societies. That's its essential utopianism. 'Government' is only a means to this end.

But I agree that it's scholars who are usually behind leftist schemes. You have to possess both the power of intellect and breadth of imagination to hold a utopian vision in your head, and to dream up the 'steps' you must 'encourage' your comrades to take in order to bring this vision to frution. And you have to be arrogant enough to believe you and your ilk are capable of remaking society, instead of humbly waiting for God to transform it.

May 1, 2007 at 7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the extent they have a politics, the "organic" and "crunchy" movement is an exception to this. They want leaders to be "conscientious" and governed by environmental scholarship (few would disagree that there is some role for empirical research in policy making), but they don't really care if leaders are "intellegenica."

Populism and progressive movement was a counter-intellegencia movement (I realize your comment is directed at modern liberalism)

May 2, 2007 at 1:22 AM  
Blogger Victor said...


You wrote:

"No, Makhno was just a gangster. This may have had something to do with his lack of success."

Don't you see what you are doing? You are defining the question in such a way that only scholars can be leftist governors of the world. Any non-scholar leftist you dismiss as either non-leftist, or non-governor, or as being a scholar under the hood. In essence, you are defining your way to your conclusion.

I think the real point is that *any* ideology will be driven largely by scholars, simply due to the nature of ideology. The governing representatives of any ideology can thus be, in some way or another, fitted into the 'scholar' mold -- and those who don't fit, usually end up footnotes in the history books anyway, like Makhno was.

I agree with what someone said above: the real essential idea of leftism is perfectibility (not perfection, but perfectibility) of man. Government by scholars has nothing to do with it, really, except inasmuch as any coherent ideology will generally be constructed by people who can be reasonably called 'scholars'.

May 2, 2007 at 9:39 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

das -

Yes, I am a huge Eric Hoffer fan. I haven't read "First Things," but I suppose I should just capitulate and order the entire oeuvre.

sfg -

While there certainly have been union leaders who didn't have a student background, and some unions did (like the Teamsters) go down the gangster path, I'll have to disagree with you there - I think the 20C union movement as a whole has been quite well-integrated with intellectual leftism. Certainly the position of "labor relations" or whatever as a university department seems pretty secure these days.

Others, especially victor - these are all good comments, but they are responding to a different argument from the one I was trying to make. The miscommunication is obviously my fault.

The ideals of leftism take many forms - equality, the eschaton, etc. The identification of leftism as a form of Christianity is essentially sound, I think, and I will have much more to say on this.

And leftists are, in my experience, like most people generally sincere.

However, my claim is that whatever the ideals, leftism in practice devolves to the rule of scholars, and this is why so many scholars are attracted to it, although they almost never rationalize it in this way. Human psychology is very, very good at aligning beliefs and interests.

And I don't think the proposition is quite as trivial as victor's analysis indicates. Certainly, even in the 20th century, we have seen societies that were dominated by, for example, the military. World War II was essentially a global civil war between neoscholastics and neomilitarists. If the neomilitarists had won, it would seem very natural to us to reason that all societies are in the end controlled by soldiers.

(Although I think the scholars would have come creeping back, even in a Nazi alternate reality. It is hard to separate scholars from power, although they will cut their tune to the party in charge. Klemperer is pretty scathing on this point. Perhaps a world in which the Nazis won WWII would not, in 2007, be as different from ours as most people assume.)

May 2, 2007 at 1:55 PM  
Anonymous SFG said...

I'll disagree. WWII was a war between Germany and Japan, Russia, and Western Europe and America. While I'm not sure Hitler could have maintained his empire, he would have killed a lot more people and left a brutal totalitarian Western Europe. Western Europe has problem but is not a totalitarian government. Like, I know you can't deny the Holocaust, but that's not the same as Nazi Germany (or for that matter Communist Russia).

Leftism in practice devolves to the rule of scholars? Could be. Is Europe run by scholars? They're well-educated, but seem primarily bureaucrats, even if French candidates publish books occasionally. (I don't see how that's different from Bush trying to run a business when out of office.)

May 2, 2007 at 2:51 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


I think it's important to distinguis the wartime Third Reich from its peacetime predecessor.

The latter is certainly misdescribed by the epithet "totalitarian." It was really more comparable to a state like today's Iran. As Simon Wiesenthal said, "unless you were a Jew, the Stasi was much worse than the Gestapo."

Especially in occupied territories (and, of course, if you were a Jew), wartime Nazism was a very different animal. It's unclear how much reversion would have occurred in peacetime. Still, I think there's no reason to think that victorious Nazis would have been more violent than victorious Soviets, especially since in prewar conditions the former were far, far more murderous.

Perhaps in the word "scholar" I went a little far in looking for the positive associations. I don't really think of bureaucrats as scholars. But nonetheless, today's civil-service tradition has its roots in the universities, and still considers itself (not entirely without truth) a guardian class of enlightened experts.

May 2, 2007 at 8:56 PM  
Anonymous SFG said...

Maybe then you could say,

The essential result of leftist policies is rule by bureaucrats . There's a lot more accuracy to that at least as regards Europe, the best example of democratic socialism available today. It makes some intuitive sense insofar as redistribution requires a large bureaucracy.

Though I'm not sure how to class Hugo Chavez, who seems pretty much like an old-fashioned strongman.

May 3, 2007 at 3:12 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


Yes, but I think there's more to it than that.

Because the bureaucrats are not "idea men." Intellectual innovation in a bureaucracy is very much discouraged. The worst sin is to be "ideological."

Today's bureaucracies get their ideas primarily from the press. And the press gets theirs from the seminaries - excuse me, universities.

So, while the bureaucrats craft the specific details of "policy," their intellectual inspiration is elsewhere. This is why I think focusing on bureaucracy as the problem is just pulling off leaves.

And, yes, what I mean is that this is the inevitable result of leftism. But, again, there is slightly more, I think.

This result is also a cause. Because it is the feeling of power, of importance, that attracts scholars to leftism in the first place. If leftism in practice meant, say, the rule of soldiers, this attraction would not exist.

Leftists, of course, don't see it this way. They don't think of themselves as scheming for power. They use phrases like "creating social change." This is very normal hominid behavior.

May 3, 2007 at 11:12 AM  
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 5:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous 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,

February 1, 2009 at 12:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


March 6, 2009 at 10:06 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home