Monday, June 4, 2007 22 Comments

Principles and platitudes

I think anyone who enjoys UR would enjoy this fine essay on "diversity" by John Rosenberg. And yes, Rosenberg's blog is pretty much always this sharp.

I would not call Rosenberg a dissident. That is, I don't think he agrees with me that the American university system is the functional equivalent of the pre-Reformation Church, or that it's at least worth debating the question of whether the only way to deal with it is the full Henry VIII treatment. Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang!

(Alas, the Church at least knew its ass from its elbow when it came to architecture, and even a ruined choir has a certain Fuseliesque charm to it, but what would remain of UC Berkeley? Rebar, junkies and rats. Perhaps still an improvement, but let's face the choice squarely. Just because America's colleges and universities could be redeveloped as luxury condos and squash courts, doesn't mean they will be. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.)

In any case, I like Rosenberg's essay because it's such an elegant contrast of formalist thinking with idealist thinking. Rosenberg looks at Bollinger's words and asks: what do they mean? His answer is: nothing. David Stove, as so often, comes to mind.

Here at UR I've tried to explain, in a very abstract and theoretical sense, how the replacement of religion by idealism has allowed people who are essentially religious fanatics to achieve positions of unprecedented temporal supremacy, not only without arousing the alarm of reasonable, scientifically minded writers, but in fact enlisting their enthusiastic support.

But I'm not sure I've done a very good job of illustrating this abstraction. So I'm grateful to Rosenberg for this devastating little sketch.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I fully agree that idealism, or more specifically ideology, is merely surrogate religion (Plato, Plotinus, Hegel, Marx, Freud, etc.). Anytime the claims, the logic, lacks any empirical foundations, the head in the clouds often fogs and merges into the metaphysics of religion.

But, I'm very uncomfortable with individuals who appeal to the obvious facts of diversity, and then reject the reality that the essentialists of yesterday, denying diversity, created serious and malignant injustices.

By definition, equality denies preferences. But by the same definition, it denies slavery. And yet, a people who appealed to "all men are created equal," did not regard all people equal. In fact, they enslaved a great number of them. Even after Emancipation, "equal protection" slipped into "separate, but equal." The institutional and systemic effects of that period cannot clear the slate by fiat. Slavery and segregation has had, and will continue to have for the foreseeable future, pernicious effects. The only way to "right" the "wrong" is not by retribution, much less by "wiping the slate clean," but only by restitution. And the debt owed for these terrible wrongs is considerable, assuming we also espouse justice, and actually mean it.

When Affirmative Action was first proposed as one of the remedies for the centuries of injustice, a common objection was "two wrongs do not a right make." Agreed. But, propose another remedy. "Oh, just wipe the slate clean." Injustice without restitution is what kind of justice? So, most of us approved state-sanctioned discrimination "in favor" of those who had been indelibly damaged, left in the abyss, and physically chained -- but as a remedy, for a time, not as a indefinite redress of indeterminate period. No restitution is, or will likely, compensate for all those centuries of injustice, but giving "preferential access" to those whose ancestors had been denied all access, citizenship, freedom, education, employment, etc. was the leastwe could do. Otherwise, "justice" is a principle and platitude without any substance! And "equality" is another fraudulent claim behind which to hide.

Now, these restitutions belong to, and only to, those whose ancestors came from Africa (mostly involuntarily, lest we've forgotten). We have an enormous debt to repay those of African descent, a debt we may never be able to repay, much less satisfy. But, and here I agree with you and Roseburg, that "debt" is non-existent to others, those who chose to come to these shores like all our other (except African) ancestors. They want to "lift themselves up" in the New World, by their initiative, let's see the initiative, not the preferential quotas assigned by some utilitarian social-planner to flatten the curve.

Diversity by its nature must accept that we are not all identical, nor are we going to have equal starts and finishes, much less the same resources to get from one point to another. Flattening the curve only denies the diversity, while appealing to diversity to flatten the curve. We call these folk Special Pleaders.

Since U.C. Berkeley is cited in the original, I'll remind readers that, if, if, it's admissions office did not use demographic, ethnic, and cultural diversity as criteria for evaluation, but simply "academic merit," the college would be 98% Asian by ethnic origin. Many families of Asian ancestery are indignant; they paid their taxes; their progeny score top with highest honors; Cal is a competitive university (with preferences for California residents, by law), but its admissions allocates space for Caucasians lest the fading Caucasian population feel it's been exploited. Who is playing the preferences game? Is Cal right to distribute spaces on the basis of ethnic heritage? Watch the Caucasians with their own Special Pleading for "access" to "it's" university dissimulate just like everyone else.

Principles? Platitudes? Depends on who is speaking them at the time.

June 4, 2007 at 5:19 PM  
Blogger Victor said...

That essay was supposed to be sharp?.. Huh?..

I can hardly recall someone making an argument in favor of affirmative action purely on the basis of diversity. There is almost always a very strong element of principle: the current socioeconomic stratification is a historic artifact of our past policies, and to simply become colorblind now will merely perpetuate the old injustices.

I am sure you won't find it hard to think of a suitably outrageous analogy involving expropriation of property by one's daddy from someone else's daddy.

Rosenberg's essay strikes me as ridiculous to the point of being obtuse. The surreal combination of "poor principled me" and brazen strawmanship is so ludicrous, it's almost glorious in a perverse sort of way.

June 4, 2007 at 6:53 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

GS -

As someone who has spent a little time at UC Berkeley, I think "98% Asian" is a slight exaggeration. Although maybe only a slight one!

Both you and victor seem to embrace a very interesting "generational" notion of "justice."

As I have mentioned before, I define "justice" as "the accurate application of the law."

The law does not recognize vague claims by all black people, or even just some black people, against white or Asian people. And, in fact, I think you would find it rather difficult to define a legal system that could make these claims precise and award damages.

I certainly agree that various white people, in the past, did various horrible things to various black people.

Various Arab people also did various awful things to various black people. Specifically, white people bought the slaves but Arabs tended to capture them (and sent many east as well). Does this mean black people should get discounted oil from the Saudis?

My Jewish ancestors left Ukraine as a result of various pogroms, presumably abandoning their belongings and such. Does that mean I have a claim against victor, who may have benefited from this? Or whose family may have?

And what about the Welsh? They were attacked and subjugated by the Saxons. Who were attacked and subjugated by the Normans. Etc.

If you want more recent examples, you have the Germans who were driven out of Eastern Europe, the Jews who were driven out of North Africa and Yemen, the entire multiethnic patchwork of Alexandria which was cleansed by the Nasserite Arabists, the Italians of Dalmatia, etc, etc, etc. Many of these people are still living and none of them will ever see any kind of restitution.

Pressing these kinds of historical, generational, and ethnic claims used to be called revanchism or irredentism. These, like all forms of identity politics, were once widely acknowledged as major causes of violence.

Now it is peddled as a cure for violence. The idea is that racial peace will come to America only when we satisfy these grievances.

But since these grievances cannot be precisely defined in any way, they cannot be satisfied, either. I would certainly be grateful to hear of any case in which peace has been the result of responding to revanchism with restitution.

It is also very interesting to see the kinds of cases in which these kinds of historical grievances are pressed, and the cases in which they are forgotten. They appear to align almost perfectly with the political goals of the people who support them. Of course, this could just be a coincidence.

(BTW, victor, Rosenberg is responding to that specific essay of Bollinger's. Many people try to justify AA as restitution rather than from "diversity," but few of them are in decision-making posts at universities. "Diversity" comes from a word used in Lewis Powell's Bakke decision, which specifically outlawed the restitution model. Thus it would be a major faux pas for Bollinger to mention. Unfortunately the whole essay is not online, so we can't see whether or not Rosenberg is quoting out of context, but I have read his site extensively and I trust he isn't.)

June 4, 2007 at 10:10 PM  
Anonymous TGGP said...

It is only a matter of time before affirmative action in Indonesia and Malaysia corrects the horrific crimed done to the native majority by the overseas Chinese majority, after which all can live in peace as brother and sister. My own country, in comparison, still has a ways to go in that area.

June 4, 2007 at 11:11 PM  
Blogger Conrad H. Roth said...

UC Berkeley has some of the finest frat-houses I've ever seen. UCB may not be Chartres, but if you think its architecture is bad, well, you ain't seen nothin'.

June 5, 2007 at 5:21 AM  
Blogger Victor said...


Before you can have a claim against me as a jew against a ukrainian, I must make that claim myself. I have two jewish grandmothers and two jewish grandfathers, which makes for some very interesting introspection and some rather strange family conversations.

Somehow I find it unsurprising that you are a jew, at least in part. My earlier quip about you engaging in the modern equivalent of talmudic studies was not just a random shot. :)

June 5, 2007 at 5:43 AM  
Blogger Byrne Hobart said...

Injustice without restitution is what kind of justice? So, most of us approved state-sanctioned discrimination "in favor" of those who had been indelibly damaged, left in the abyss, and physically chained -- but as a remedy, for a time, not as a indefinite redress of indeterminate period.

Interesting! So now that the perpetrators are dead, we can punish their descendants -- who would find the acts for which they're being punished quite abhorrent. This is a fascinating idea, but there are some practical problems: how do you fit sixteen million war criminals into one courtroom at The Hague?

June 5, 2007 at 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

The comparison of modern ethnic grievance politics to irredentism and revanchism is a most astute observation. Whereas irredentism - still found, for example, amongst Arabs aggrieved over the loss of Palestinian territories to Israel - focuses on land, the demand for affirmative action or reparations is about a sort of incorporeal patrimony of which it is claimed that a particular group of people were improperly deprived in the past.

It's easy to identify a piece of land on the map, be it Gaza, or Alsace, or the Sudetenland, etc., that once belonged to country A and was taken from it by country B. But how do we value what was taken from black slaves for three hundred years? And who is to bear the responsibility for having taken it? This is especially significant in the case of African slaves transported to America, because in most cases they were initially enslaved by other Africans. Typically, coastal tribes raided inland settlements and took captives there. Some of these were later sold as slaves to Europeans, who then took them to the Americas.

After reading Sir Richard Burton's account of his expedition to what was then called the Slave Coast (now Ghana), one must conclude that those sold as slaves were the fortunate ones, since most of the others were slaughtered in a festival of human sacrifice called the Annual Custom. If captives happened to be taken in the year of a new monarch's accession, the festival involved even more sacrifices and was called the Grand Custom.

In any event, American (and Jamaican, and Brazilian, etc.) planters who bought slaves can at worst be characterised as the recipients of stolen property, rather than as the thieves. If we follow the reparationist argument to its logical conclusion, the amount of restitution due the descendants of the enslaved must be exacted from the descendants of all who were involved in the slave trade, beginning with the coastal African slavers.

Furthermore, restitution must be duly proportionate to the value added at each stage of the transaction by which slaves were brought from west Africa to the New World. In other words, so much should come from the descentants of the original African vendors, so much from descendants of the operator of the slave ship, so much from descendants of the dealers in slaves who bought them at wholesale off the boats and sold them at retail, and finally so much from descendants of the slaveholders who enjoyed the usufuct of their labor.

Against all of the latter, surely some deduction must be made for the enormous amount of blood and treasure expended by the United States from 1861-5 to free the slaves. Finally, what about the benefit that people of African descent have enjoyed by virtue of living in the United States, as compared to what their lot might have been had they remained in Africa? Certainly, African-Americans have had a rougher treatment in their history on this continent than have most of its other inhabitants. On the other hand, I recall some years ago that a prominent black academic (Henry Louis Gates?) visited Africa, saw some of the historic places and artifacts related to the African slave trade, and witnessed the poverty, ignorance, and diseased condition of the local population. He concluded that he was on the whole thankful that his ancestors had been brought to British North America as slaves, since the ultimate consequence of that long-ago action was that he was thereby enabled to enjoy the education, wealth, health, and comfort of a member of the American upper middle class.

The calculus of who is owed restitution, how much, and by whom, is so complex as to be well-nigh impossible. It would be akin to Shylock trying to carve out the precise pound of flesh contractually due him, if not to Solomon dividing the baby. Lacking the necessary exactitude, any attempt at such an undertaking would do a new injustice even as it sought to remedy an old one. Law, as well as medicine, ought to be guided by the ancient maxim, "primum non est nocere."

June 5, 2007 at 11:01 AM  
Blogger chris miller said...

As the first person (I've read) to recommend transforming our great secular churches into "bare ruined choirs" -- I have to tip my hat to you.

And yet ---- I'm pretty sure you'd call me an idealist -- it's just that we secular idealists (just like Christians, Moslems, or Jews) often don't have that much in common with each other. (i.e. we all don't share the same ideals)

And somehow -- I'm sensing that you're some kind of idealist yourself -- otherwise --- why are you putting so much time/energy into setting the world straight through argument ?

I'm not against idealism -- I just want --- brace yourself ! -- an effective diversity among idealisms (i.e. -- to remove the monopoly held by reigning Church of Knowledge)

June 5, 2007 at 11:06 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

victor -

Damn, and I had just gotten that invoice printed up, too! If there's one thing we Jews are good at, it's billing...

michael - again I feel intimidated by my own comments section...

chris - thanks; this post might answer your question...

June 5, 2007 at 7:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>I define "justice" as "the accurate application of the law." <<<<

So would Hitler! Stalin! Bush! I don't think I'd stay with that criterion, if I were you.

As a Cal alum, with extensive faculty, administration, and alum interface, the admissions, if truly and solely meritorious would be nearly 98% Asian.

Your final slippery slope is too slippery for everyone but special pleaders. Throughout history injustices have been done, wars fought, peoples slaughtered, but in all that time, only one people insisted with pride that "all are created equal," but institutionalized slavery for the first time in the West since the Fall of the Roman Empire nonetheless. Unlike voluntary emigrants who chose these shores, these slaves were imported involuntarily, with resistance, that only force overcame. Most died in captivity on their way to institutional slavery. And even after Emancipation, still institutionalized segregation till 1954. All your examples do not correlate to this circumstance; none are analogous.

Like many who want to rewrite the script, whether Left or Right, they'll use any means to do so. That does not mean those of us who do approve AA for restitution are not aware of those who "use" AA for ulterior purposes. And when it comes to those of African descent, the outcome is the same.

Now, whether merit alone should be the sole criterion for "admission," that criterion has never been most colleges sole criterion (or even for employment). Indeed, most colleges have always practiced some form of diversification (bible colleges an obvious exception), perhaps not so ostensibly along racial lines, and not with quotas. Frankly, nearly every other area of most individuals' lives succeed most when they do practice diversification, as it distributes both risk and benefits. So, I'm not ready to abandon diversification, even if AA other than for African descent, is unacceptable.

June 6, 2007 at 9:46 AM  
Anonymous TGGP said...

only one people insisted with pride that "all are created equal," but institutionalized slavery for the first time in the West since the Fall of the Roman Empire nonetheless.

"All men are created equal" is a rather specific quote that could be laid upon "only one people", but the second is not. Serfdom was somewhat like slavery and was widespread after the fall of Rome. The English, the Spanish, the Portugese and the French all had colonies with institutionalized slavery (did the Dutch? I forget).

June 6, 2007 at 2:48 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


Not only did I drop out of grad school at Berkeley, but I had actually been attending that institution for almost a month before I realized it was the same school known as "Cal." So I'll have to defer to your expertise on this one! In any case, I certainly did TA some classes that were something like the percentage you describe. So in computer science at least it's not farfetched.

I'm afraid, though, that while I admire your idealism - which I think is essentially Christian, and I admire in much the same way as I admire dedicated Christians - I can't share it.

I should probably dedicate an entire post to the proposition that "all men are created equal," which I can interpret only as a spiritual statement. I certainly don't see it as either a logical theorem that can be demonstrated deductively from first principles, or as a factual observation that could be falsified inductively in a Popperian sense.

I assume you do know that the position you're advocating violates both US (Bakke) and California (Prop. 209) law. This does not make it evil, but I should reiterate my views on chaotic good, which are deeply held.

I certainly don't see Hitler and Stalin as upholders of the law. Hitler destroyed the entire Rechtstaat (rule-of-law state, or literally state of right) tradition of German law, and Stalin of course knew no law but himself. As for Bush - well, who can defend Bush? Militarism is not legalism.

But here is a point you may be able to engage with. Don't you find racial admissions preferences, for some of the most talented young people of any race, a rather odd way to compensate African-Americans for the injustices we both agree their ancestors suffered? Wouldn't it be easier to simply pay them?

Not that I'm an advocate of reparations, but it strikes me as much more obvious and less objectionable than racial college admissions, which just strike me as bizarre. Colleges started dinking around with race to keep out Jews in the 1920s, and they haven't stopped yet. Why not just hold competitive examinations to which all may apply and be judged equally? I find legacy and athletic admissions just as weird, and inflated high-school grades are not far behind.

Essentially, it strikes me that racial engineering in selective college admissions has to be evaluated not by its intention, but by its result: changing the racial proportions of the powerful people in American society.

Reparations certainly would not accomplish this. So when I look for explanations of why we have racial status engineering and we don't have reparations, I feel I have to look at explanations of why this policy has succeeded that are not as benign as the interpretations you present. I am confident, as usual, that everyone's motivations are good. But I think there are also adaptive explanations of why this policy has flourished, and other equally well-motivated policies which might address the same historical injustices have not.

BTW, I wonder how you feel about similar programs in India and elsewhere, as in this recent story. (Linked from Rosenberg.)

June 6, 2007 at 8:08 PM  
Blogger chris miller said...

Education is just another un-definable ideal -- so how can a non-idealist even begin to discuss the admission policies of universities?

Why would this issue concern you -- more, say, than the admission policies of a trendy nightclub?

Is it only because some universities are pubic institutions and supported by your taxes? But even then -- taxes and public administration are matters of law, and doesn't the non-idealist try to follow laws rather than question them ?

June 7, 2007 at 5:40 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

Education is undefinable, but truth is quite definable. Or axiomatic, at least, which is the same thing.

And this exactly is what interests me about the (one-way) exchange between Rosenberg and Bollinger - the cant in the latter's thought. Cant is a sort of systematic linguistic lie. It's not so much that I care who gets into Berkeley, that I am interested by any force that creates falsehood.

June 7, 2007 at 4:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm regret your experience at Cal was so disappointing. It happens. I remember the Sixties' "Free Speech" Movement, which was anything but. Eldridge Cleaver, David Harris, and all the other subversives failed to understand that "Free Speech" means free speech, not Marxist orthodoxy. Now, even Frederick Crews is doing his repentance, for enabling Freudian theory in literature. Maybe Alter will admit a non-Jew to his syllabus, but it has yet to happen. Special Pleadings by special pleaders is the norm. It does not mean I have to accept the special pleadings. Only recognize them for what they're worth.

When Eastern Europrean emigrees flooded this country to escape persecution in their lands, they did the very same thing the Puritans did. Lacking the insights of the Age of Enlightenment, they fed their theories to the next generation of those who were just as clueless as they. Their "intelligence" pierced the academic halls of privilege, only to be discriminated against, not because they were "Jewish," but because they had no idea what an Enlightenment was. They preached their Messianiac, Oedipus, and Zionist creeds, in the face of skeptics, frankly, until the emigrees demanded the skeptics "get with the program."

In that mix were extraordinary "individuals," like Eric Auerbach, F. A. von Hayek, but they did not "fit" the emigrees' from Eastern Europe's dream. Without a sense of "Enlightenment," how could they? It was not their fault, but it was their provincial ideas that lacked the expansiveness of liberal ideals. They preached what all preachers preach. Harvard rebelled, not because they were necessarily "Jewish," but because they did not understand the New World dynamic. They did not understand what an "Enlightenment" was alike, they just fled oppression, repression, and yet another "holocaust."

For some impercetpible reason, a Messianic Complex compels some individuals to "save" the rest of humanity. Their names are legion, their complex obvious, whose names fill the New Republic, Dissent, and American Prospect rolls (unless they get the Straussian neo-conservative fever, such as the Kristols, Dichters, Abrahms, Wolfowitz) who enable the Bush theocrats to imitate Israel's special pleading.

If, and it's a major if, we could all assimilate under the Age of Enlightenment's banner, we would not need the diviners of Left or Right, Chomsky or Soros, vs. Kristols and Strauss, or all the Messianic figures of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Marx, or Freud to divine the next "path to salvation." BUT, whatever these HEADS decide, it does not change the fact that this country mistreated, maligned, and segregated another RACE, the Africans, well before the Jews found they could play the Evangelicals, and vice versa, against each other for the "sake of the Bible." Just is Just. Our ancestors did a horrible Injustice, not to Jews, but to the Africans. That you see it as all about Jews tells the rest of us what prefer dissimulate for "your" race, creed, color, and national origin.

Some Causes are Real. Others are happenstance. The Italians, Irish, and Mexicans all insist they've been the subject of "prejudice." Perhaps so, as my own ancestors, so what's the Jews' excuse? Apparently, because they think "they know better," and who gave them that privilege? Yahweh. Jesus. Marx. Freud. Kristols. Chomsky. Soros. It's all special pleadings, it's all another exception to the "rules," and you continue to prove what I hoped was the end of special pleadings.

But if Falwell and Zionists agree, can god disagree?

June 9, 2007 at 5:35 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


I definitely ask for no special pleadings on account of being Jewish! (Or half Jewish, to be exact.) My examples were merely rhetorical.

"Injustice" for me means the opposite of "justice." "Justice" means the accurate and fair application of the law. The law acts on persons, and a country is not a person, nor is an unspecified set of ancestors.

In fact, even if we could establish that my great-grandfather had committed some specific crime against yours - perhaps stolen his car - I know of no legal theory which suggests that I owe you anything. If claims of this sort did not expire and could be transferred through estates, the courts would be inundated.

So how much more must we despair of finding a precise way to compensate offenses by one "people" against another? We cannot even define who is white and who is black, unless we use the slaveholder's drop of blood rule, or some other heinous and arbitrary racial standard (I believe South Africa had many).

The goal of law is to suppress chaos, and to suppress chaos you need a formally defined law. Otherwise there can be no end to the problem - no closure. The only quantifiable answer to the question of "what do the Saxons owe the Welsh?" is zero, and I believe the same is true of European versus African Americans.

some offense has been committed against the application of the law. The law acts on persons, and a country is not a person, nor is an

June 11, 2007 at 8:54 PM  
Anonymous bbroadside said...

The 98% figure seems pretty high to me.
The Center for Equal Opportunity estimates about 50% Asian enrollees under a hypothetical pure-meritocratic program for the mid-1990s.

July 22, 2007 at 1:19 AM  
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,

January 31, 2009 at 11:34 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 7:40 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,
^^ 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...


March 6, 2009 at 9:40 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home