Saturday, July 21, 2007 27 Comments

Miscellaneous answers to unanswered comments

Having safely arrived in an old Dutch village on the Eastern Seaboard, I find that though my Dutch is nonexistent, they all seem to speak English these days and the Internet works perfectly. So I'm in a position to stave off the growing impression of an abandoned blog.

First, various persons have complained about the monicker "Mencius Moldbug." I adopted this handle because of my habit of posting as "Mencius" on these blogs and "moldbug" on this rather different one. I agree that it is anything but euphonious, but handles are hard to change - ask The Edge or CmdrTaco, both of whom I'm sure would love to ditch their puerile pseuds. I'd like to think mine is at least better than that. However, it certainly has nothing to do with the Chinese philosopher, Carlos Mencia, fungi, insects, etc, and I apologize if anyone is misled.

In general, if the double-barreled monstrosity is too much of a mouthful to repeat and there is no chance of confusion with the Chinese philosopher, I prefer the name "Mencius." Because no one really is named "Moldbug" - it only really works as a lower-cased handle.

I'll probably just unmask myself at some point. I mean, it's not like I have an actual career, anyway. I'm just very resistant to posting under my real name because, if you knew my real name and you searched the archives of an obsolete network called Usenet for it, you'd get far too many hits. Since I am 34, no reasonable person would associate anything written in 1992 with the individual I am now, but unfortunately, not everyone is reasonable. I recognize that this predicament has nothing to do with anything. But we all have our phobias.

I also want to reiterate that I am not, in fact, reducing UR to one post a week. Rather, there's a narrative thread that runs through this blog and that has generated some long essays, and I want to make this thread slightly more formal and put it on a weekly basis. But there are also little fuzzy pieces of yarn sticking out in random directions, and these will remain.

(Also, there are now a few people with whose email I am extremely delinquent. If you are one of these people, I will get back to you in the next two days - I swear by Odhinn's spear. And he didn't hang those nine long nights for nothing, you know.)

Moving back to actual content, one commenter mentions science fiction as a locus of resistance to Universalism. Indeed, I read a huge quantity of SF growing up (and I don't mean by this to suggest that the entire genre is somehow automatically puerile). Much of it was libertarian in tone, and even when it wasn't, the exercise of imagining alternative political systems is automatically liberating. I suspect most anyone reading this had more or less the same experience.

However, if you want to seriously consider alternative political systems, it's not clear to me that a fictional context - despite its distinguished historical pedigree - makes for either the best argument, or the best fiction. Memorability, while not the be-all and end-all, is often an interesting test of quality, and the SF I remember best after a decade-plus of abstinence tends not to be Heinlein or Stephenson, but more imaginative writers like Paul Park and Lucius Shepard. And if you have something to say, why not just say it?

There's also a case to be made that the sugar-pill of an imaginative context helps communicate these messages to the masses. Perhaps. But, first, this idea that intellectuals have a duty to lead the non-intellectual masses is a lot of how we got into this mess to begin with. I'd much prefer to live in a world in which the masses can think whatever they want to think, ditto for the intellectuals, and no one's philosophy affects anyone else. Of course to actually accomplish a transition to such a world, or to modify present political realities in any way, the masses must at least show up and affix their imprimatur. However, this can only happen if it follows an intellectual consensus or at least a movement, and any successful intellectual movement tends to attract the masses whether it wants to or not. So I feel it's much more useful and effective, for libertarians and other dissidents, to simply focus on being right.

Also, it's not really clear how well the dissident themes in these books are absorbed. To me it's obvious that J.K. Rowling has had one too many run-ins with moralizing Universalist bureaucrats, and one would expect her readers to be suitably primed for rebellion. On the other hand, to me it's obvious that J.R.R. Tolkien - a far greater writer - despised the State and Power in every form, and was horrified by the Universalist belief that this Ring could be used, Boromir style, for good as well as evil. But if 0.1% of the people who have read Tolkien, or seen those awful, tone-deaf movies that were made out of his books, understand this, I'd be very, very surprised.

The same commenter also mentions Congregationalism. Of course, Congregationalists were Puritans and are now Universalists, so the link is entirely justified, and the phrase "mutant Congregationalism" is inarguable. Still, it's interesting to note that the literal meaning of the name - the principle that each church is intellectually independent, and can decide for itself on theological questions - is in fact the direct opposite to the actual orthodoxy that was imposed under this name. Because the churches did not, in fact, differ, and do not differ to this day. The tolerance is entirely illusory.

These kinds of ironies are very common in the whole Protestant complex. And going back to the biological analogy, they represent a kind of misdirected immune response, an attempt to achieve mental independence which in many (if not all) cases only resulted in a newer, more effective system of indoctrination, that's worth discussing in much more detail.

Someone else wants to know what I think of Ayn Rand. An excellent question, although it's one I have some difficulty in answering because I've never read any of Rand's books from cover to cover. I simply don't like her as a writer, which makes it hard for me to express a fair opinion on her as a thinker.

However, with that caveat, my general view is that Rand's attempt to break out of the Universalist-Revelationist (aka "liberal-conservative") dichotomy was a bold one and worthy of much respect. Objectivism is one of the few genuine root nodes in the cladogram of Western thought. You simply cannot describe it as Christian in any way, and as such it represents a considerable achievement. For example, it differs from Rothbardian libertarianism here - Rothbardian ethics are basically Lockean ethics, and Locke was certainly a Christian. Connecting natural rights to the Bible is not hard at all.

But there is something much too Papal about Rand. She essentially constructed a system of morality and required all reasonable people to accept it. I don't find her solution to the is-ought problem any more compelling than anyone else's - to me, ethics are fundamentally a matter of taste, and I feel no more entitled to tell someone else they should find X ethical or Y unethical, than to tell them they should like poetry and they shouldn't like badminton.

I feel that all reasonable people should be reasonable. I don't ask anything more than this, and I certainly have no intention of asking Universalists to stop being Universalists, Revelationists to stop being Revelationists, Muslims to stop being Muslims, etc, etc - at least not in the sense of the value systems associated with these faiths. My view is just that a great many beliefs about the real world have become associated with these value systems, and a great many people who are otherwise quite reasonable fail to evaluate these beliefs reasonably.

For example, Universalists (like Revelationists, and basically all Christians) believe that all humans are ethically equal. No rational argument can be made either for or against this position. It is what it is, and I happen to more or less (like Peter Singer, I make some allowance for diminished states of consciousness) share it. After all, I was raised a Universalist.

But Universalists also believe that this proposition implies the proposition that all humans should be governed by "civil servants" of their own race, color, creed, or at least "nationality" (never mind that this concept should be meaningless to a Universalist). Obviously, I find this derivation - which is all the sense I can glean from the bizarre phrase "self-government" - debatable at best and ludicrously incoherent at worst.

I feel this debate is quite enough for anyone to take on. I don't think that any set of beliefs about the spirit world, theistic or atheistic, are incompatible with an accurate perception of reality. The same goes for any set of ethical beliefs. My quarrel with the various modern religions, including but not limited to the Universalist and Revelationist versions of Christianity, is that they are all associated with beliefs about reality that are transmitted along with them, many of which are quite sound, many of which strike me as extremely strange and remarkably unreasonable.

I'm sure my judgment of many of these beliefs - metaphysical, moral and temporal - is exactly the same as Rand's. Nonetheless, I don't feel it helps anyone to attack the metaphysical and moral elements of Christianity, especially not in the same breath in which one suggests that the temporal elements of their received belief system may be complete baloney - or at least that it may be a useful exercise to treat these elements as if they were complete baloney, if only for the purpose of reconfirming them. If this is misguided altruism, call me an altruist.

In my ideal world, there are still Universalists, Revelationists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. In fact, in my ideal world, I would have no problem in describing myself as a Universalist. But all I mean by this is that my metaphysical and moral beliefs are basically Universalist. In my ideal world, however, your metaphysical and moral beliefs would be entirely orthogonal to your understanding of reality and how it works, and especially to your understanding of such politically delicate fields as history and economics. Obviously, in the real world, this is not so.

Another commenter mentions - among many interesting points (yes, I certainly do see the whole bizarre Puritan obsession with the Old Testament mythos as a fundamental strand in the Universalist creed) - David Gelernter's new book, Americanism. I have a copy of this book and I intend to review it here, so please stay tuned. (Also, anyone can call me anything they like - so long as they don't mention my true name, which I received a thousand centuries ago on the fire-planet Zond. I would be forced to return to my original form, and destroy them. And nobody wants that.)

I feel a blockquote is desirable here, for no particular reason:
However, I think serious discussions began on both sides when CFR personnel began appearing on television news programs with the person's name and the simple title, "Council on Foreign Relations" beneath. Personally, I keep tabs on the world conspiracy by reading Foreign Affairs every month. At $32 a year (two years for $60)you may peer directly into the core of the Progressive-Universalist nervous system, and monitor the most intimate and therfore banal goings on there. Wells was right - the conspiracy is totally open. I mean really - what are you going to do about it? FA is evil at its wonkiest: how best to achieve a federated world state without sexism or racism, managed by transnational NGOs of zero accountability? The rest of it is even more trivial: now that we have the levers of power, what settings are best? The siesta-inducing cover story this month is concerned that globalization's benefits are insufficiently distributed, which any honest economist (not that there are any living) could have told you would be the case. The apparatchik's solution: a New Deal for Globalism! Well, that can't go wrong. Once the UN is granted direct power to tax, all of the successes that the US is currently enjoying from the Income Tax, the Great Society, the War on Poverty, the Civil Rights Movement, et. al. can be expanded to encircle the globe. The rough beast come round to Bethlehem at last!
Indeed. As for honest economics, I hope to offer a little in that vein myself, but one could do a lot worse than the Mises Institute.

Another commenter more or less answers his or her own question, but observes that views of the UN have changed over time. Indeed they have - reality has shown many Universalists that the UN is not the organization they want it to be. But this does not change their emotional attachment to the idea of the UN, the ideal of world government that it represents. It simply reminds them that there's a very long road from here to there. Moreover, I think that the number of die-hard right-wing UN-haters in the US - as represented by the set of people who believe the US should leave the UN, an easily pollable question - has in general declined over time. But I have no numbers on this - it's just a guess.

Lastly, the question everyone's been waiting for: why don't the Universalists do something useful, like legalizing pot? A fascinating question, because one notes that all the hippie ideas of the '60s that involved making the State bigger and stronger have (pretty much) happened, whereas all the others have (pretty much) not. This certainly deserves its own discussion, but I will say one thing: the answer is in Jouvenel.


Anonymous George Weinberg said...

to me, ethics are fundamentally a matter of taste, and I feel no more entitled to tell someone else they should find X ethical or Y unethical, than to tell them they should like poetry and they shouldn't like badminton.

I can't go along with that. I think it's usually impossible to resolve disagreements over ethical questions via arguments, but the problem is, agreeing to disagree doesn't work either. Depending on the ethical systems in question, it may be that the adherents of rival ethical systems may agree to accept boundaries where each is allowed to rule within its sphere, or it may be that one group will enforce its system upon or destroy the other group. But in any one area, conflicting ethical systems are incompossible.

July 22, 2007 at 10:52 AM  
Blogger Daniel A. Nagy said...

Welcome back online, Moldy. Hope, you're not offended by not calling you Mencius, but I cannot build an associative link between the confucian philosopher and the violence-minimizing formalist one.

The other name, Moldbug, which I parse like a bug that eats mold, I find quite appropriate. On one hand, there's this super-resilient self-replicator that eats our lunch if we're not quick enough to eat it ourselves, while on the other hand, we have UR gnawing away at it. :-)

July 22, 2007 at 12:58 PM  
Anonymous bbroadside said...

If I may speculate, MM's choice of surname is a reference to the last true members of the Democratic Party, who were often called Goldbugs (or Bourbon Democrats). Since they combined hard-money with anti-imperialism and free trade, MM (and I) think they are the cat's pajamas. By switching from "gold" to "mold", MM has pointed out that small government policies have sort of died out among the major parties.

But that's just a guess! My crystal ball isn't one of your high-end models.

July 23, 2007 at 12:02 AM  
Blogger Aaron Davies said...

Am I the only one who initially took "old Dutch village on the Eastern Seaboard" as a reference to New York?

July 23, 2007 at 4:38 AM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

Whether or not bbroadside's speculation is correct, the "gold Democrats" were certainly the last really admirable members of their party; their exemplar was Grover Cleveland, whom Mencken called "a good man in a bad job." I've always thought that Cleveland was an underrated president, so if "moldbug" alludes to "gold bug," so much the better.

July 23, 2007 at 10:20 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

Indeed "moldbug" is a reference to the mold standard, which I once proposed in a sort of Swiftian vein on Brad Setser's blog. Unfortunately, the damn thing doesn't seem to be searchable, or I would dig up the post, but I spent about a year as the peanut-gallery Austrian in this nest of neo-Keynesians, in which I was embarrassed to be treated with much more respect than I either expressed or deserved.

Our monetary-policy establishment has spent the last eighty years clinging to a view of the gold standard curiously similar to that of Ezra Pound, whose economic theories were surely sufficient on their own to put him in St. Elizabeth's. But some of them are starting to come back around. (Apparently Steil was talking up digital gold currencies on, of all places, NPR. The mind boggles. Next, I suppose, Pat Robertson will endorse "rap music" and Ron Paul will come out in favor of world socialism.)

In any case, if you have any interest in the insane world of international finance, the very unruly Vesuvius under our prosperous Pompeii, RGE and specifically Setser's blog is the
place to go.

Cleveland was certainly in many ways the last real Democrat. I've always admired his actions on the Texas Seed Bill. The Bryanites and the Wilson and FDR regimes pursued policies that Democrats of Cleveland's time would have recognized as hyper-Republican. Once the party no longer stood for decentralism and limited government, its name became meaningless.

The conventional term for this process is "realignment," but I think a more expressive word is "partyjacking," as its only purpose is misleading voters, something it happens to be quite good at. Southerners were still voting Democratic well into the '80s, at least 50 years after it had become the party of Harvard.

The Dutch village is, alas, not New York but Zwaanendael. Presumably if I fail to reappear, it may be because I've been massacred by the Nanticoke.

July 23, 2007 at 1:47 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


That's a lovely Devil's Dictionary page! And yes, incompossible is exactly the word.

I agree completely - agreeing to disagree definitely doesn't work, although I'd say it works better than many people have often thought. After all, for several hundred years it was the conventional wisdom in Europe that everyone who lived in the same country had to be of the same religion - a fact that, if I may play the multicultural card, the Ottoman Empire just next door did a fine job of disproving.

But notice how everyone with a plan for a world government is also equipped with a plan for a universal system of ethics. Boundaries are essential, even if they only amount to the Ottomans' millet system. (In South Africa, of course, very much the same system had a different name, a contradiction which I expect will bedevil multicultural moralizers for quite some time.)

July 23, 2007 at 1:52 PM  
Anonymous tggp said...

This is off topic, but I was wondering what you think of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's theories. You can find econtalk interviews with him here. He is perhaps the most cynical voice on politics I have come across from someone who seems more knowledgeable than bitter. It is in the tradition of both Machiavelli and (more directly) William Riker, whose self-interested rational choice assumptions are both currently under assault from Bryan Caplan.

I happened to read a brief section of John Lott's "Freedomnomics" recently, which urges less cynicism (I am generally in favor of cynical beliefs, for reasons Robin Hanson points out at the end of this) toward businesspeople (for the valid reason that market competition constrains them) and toward politicians, which I was surprised by. However, he seems to have evidence that politicians behave the same after they truthfully announce they are not running again as they do otherwise, as also do politicians that become lobbyists compared to those who do not. His explanation is that politicians really believe that their policies are good policies. This would seem to mesh with Mises's (and I think Caplan's as well) belief that earnest politicians will have an advantage at appearing earnest to voters compared to cynical ones. Of course, Caplan views all this as a bad thing while Lott does not even question its goodness, though he does almost claim granting suffrage to women was a bad idea (though he also said it would support the feminist claim that women have needs that weren't being met by a government determined by males).

One particular example Mesquita discusses is that of King Leopold. His reign as constitutional monarch of Belgium was a rather good one. His control over the Congo Free State was notoriously bad and resulted in the requirement that I read "Heart of Darkness" and "King Leopold's Ghost" when I was in school. I would be interested to hear your analysis of Leopold.

July 23, 2007 at 8:17 PM  
Anonymous Beaumont and Fletcher said...

So what would your you vision of the world be?
(your Utopia)

A sort of ad hoc democracy, based upon scientific, skeptical rationalism but spiritual none the less?

Your point - that ethics are a question of taste -
seems to me to be a flight into an even more problematic area.
isn't this the direction in which we are currently
heading, traceable to the beginning of the 20th century...
The creation of aesthetical ethics - based upo some sort of hyposthasis of the idea of a person?

July 24, 2007 at 8:31 AM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


Podcasts are too slow for me, but if de Mesquita (who has a very cool name) accurately summarizes his thought here, then I see a number of problems, first his absurd use of statistics ("90% of democracies...), but more deeply his theory that democracies concentrate on "public goods" as opposed to private payoffs. Has de Mesquita never heard of pork? Parties in a democracy are very good at funneling massive benefits to their supporters.

In fact, democratic foreign wars are often proxy wars in which each domestic party has its favored foreign partner. Examples range from the American Revolution (note the use of the word "Tory") to the wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

I don't know that much about the Congo regime. I read Hochschild's book, but a long time ago. One has to balance European atrocities against Africans with African atrocities against Africans - if there is an argument for not judging both by the same standard, what is it?

July 24, 2007 at 12:51 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


My taste in ethics is very specific, and it certainly falls in the general Christian range. It's just that I cannot convince anyone else to adopt that taste by arguing with them.

I personally would prefer to live in a modern version of a limited constitutional monarchy, in which the hereditary principle had been replaced by a shareholder principle. Some people would prefer a kibbutz, an Islamic state, etc, and the world strikes me as large enough for all of it.

July 24, 2007 at 12:53 PM  
Anonymous TGGP said...

It's too bad that you won't be listening to the podcasts. They are better than that paper (though even after reading another paper, which is linked to and attacked in a manner you'd love by Arnold Kling here, and listening to the podcasts, I'm still unclear on what the "selectorate" is).

Regarding pork, relative to the "private goods" he claims autocrats supply, pork is fairly distributed. In addition, pork is very popular even with people who don't receive it! Most government spending is on things like defense, social security and medicare. They are very wasteful, but not very targeted.

July 24, 2007 at 4:53 PM  
Blogger Daniel A. Nagy said...

Contrarily to Moldy, I don't even have a preferred social system. Anything can get boring over time. I am fine with any system, as long as exit- and entry costs are negligibly low. Any country can become a good place to live, if those and only those live there who actually want to be there.
Jurisdiction shopping is one of my favorite pastimes... :-)

July 25, 2007 at 1:21 AM  
Anonymous George Weinberg said...

I liked the Bueno de Mesquita podcast, but I think there's a fundamental difference between societies where the state directly controls the economy and the media (so you pretty much have to be a government official or have one for a patron to have any status at all) and relatively open ones where you can get a high status without any direct government ties. The dictatorship/oligarchy vs democracy distinction seems less important (here congressmen almost never lost a reelection bid, presidents only stand for reelection once, and of course the civil service is immune to elections).

A couple things from the podcast that maybe are obvious to the rest of you but weren't to me:
1)Foreign aid is often contingent on adopting policies which are very unpopular in the recipient countries.
2) The surest way for a dictator to lose power during his lifetime is to let it become known that he's dying.

July 25, 2007 at 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

"A limited constitutional monarchy in which the hereditary principle had been replaced by a shareholder principle" sounds a little like La Serenissima to me. The doges were elected constitutional and limited monarchs; the electors, Venetian citizens whose families had been inscribed in the Golden Book, or as we might in more modern terms say, listed in the roster of shareholders/limited partners. The process of electing a doge was as complicated as, say, the election of a CEO in a company having several classes of stock, minimum stockholding qualifications for directors, and cumulative voting rights in electing members of the board that elected the CEO. Venice was a commercial republic, its wealth made more from trade than from conquest. Its patriciate was made up of rich merchant families, like those listed in the Social Register, rather than being a feudal nobility, like those listed in Debrett. And it lasted for a thousand years, until in its hedonistic decadence (much like ours today) the Murdoch of his age (Buonaparte) mounted a hostile take-over.

July 25, 2007 at 2:26 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

michael s.,

Yes, although it's fairly crucial for a stable shareholder system for the shares to actually be transferrable. I know very little of her history, but I suspect that family ties and family politics had a lot to do with the decline of La Serenissima, which certainly was not in the healthiest of states when the little Corsican finisher her off.

July 25, 2007 at 7:40 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


I agree on the entry and exit costs - any kind of jurisdiction competition is a very healthy force. And note that while I may have some trouble with "Moldbug," anyone who dares may call me "Moldy..."

July 25, 2007 at 7:41 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...


Defense, Social Security and Medicare are anything but widely-distributed! The latter two benefit the old, the first benefits defense contractors. Unless you're thinking of these concepts in the abstract? But abstractions are so seldom abstract...

July 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM  
Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

BTW, "data molesters" (Kling on de Mesquita) is right!

Actually I'd argue that anyone who applies mathematical models in the study of government or even macroeconomics (any economic system involving aggregate, immensurable or incomparable quantities) is a data molester, regardless of little peccadillos like the ones Kling uncovers. Frankly, if the girl is five, it doesn't matter what you do to her. But I'm so grateful to the phrase that I'll forgive him for condoning the violation.

At best, these models may tell you what you could already argue - such as, "the surest way for a dictator to lose power is to let people know he's dying." There is always an argument behind the model, which is generally concocted in order to lend it the garb of scientific truth, and sometimes the argument is quite interesting. Lose the pseudo-numbers and give me the argument, and I'm quite happy.

July 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM  
Anonymous TGGP said...

With regards to benefit, I think a lot of what we do is just plain stupid and it is hard to say that we're better off, but here are some reasons why the average person would describe those areas as being wide rather than focused: as citizens we are all protected from the King of England (or wacky muslims that want to convert us to islam) pushing us around by our military, all of us (unless we are black and don't live very long, but let's not think about that) will eventually be old and then be covered by old-folks programs. "We owe it to ourselves" as they say.

I think you are confusing mathematical modeling with empiricism. One of the big things in economics has been a shift away from the former starting with Krueger's "natural experiment" analyzing the effect of education and reaching mass popularity with Levitt's "Freakonomics", which is less about economics (though he does discuss the importance of incentives) than empirical methods in use. Mathematical modeling is essentially just formalizing what may be a good argument, without bothering to grab any data to molest. I consider it a bit more convincing than what you'd call "speculation", but less so than empirical investigation. The full article is gated, but you might be interested in this blog post which contains much of the TNR article "How Freakonomics is Ruining the Dismal Science".

July 25, 2007 at 11:24 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 6:22 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,

January 31, 2009 at 11:08 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 7:53 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 7:54 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, 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 8:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


March 6, 2009 at 5:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


March 6, 2009 at 9:24 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home