The Libertarian Alliance’s Sean Gabb offers a balanced and thoughtful piece on the NHS over at their blog. And you know, I was sitting there reading it and nodding and thinking, well, this is a balanced and thoughtful piece, and then suddenly I ran into this-
This may be a sufficient explanation of the mess we are in. But there may be a further consideration that has to do with the whole system of state welfare and with the heavy taxes needed to pay for it. If I am not an expert in these matters, I can at least state my opinions. These are that intelligence and general ability seem for the most part to be inherited. Clever people can have stupid children, and stupid people can have clever children. But inheritance does seem to be very important. Now, if there is reasonable social mobility, those with ability will move into the higher classes. If, for any reason, these higher classes have a lover birth rate than the rest of the population, there will, over time, be a decline in the average quality of the population. Wars that disproportionately kill the braver and more enterprising, and that deprive the world of the offspring of the brave and enterprising, will cause damage that is almost immediately obvious. But high taxes that discourage the middle classes from having children, and welfare policies that subsidise the less able, will have a more subtle, longer term effect. It may be that state welfare has damaged the English by changing our habits of thought. It may also have damaged us by changing us as a people. We may not be more stupid in ways that can be measured by IQ tests But we may have become more like the clever but unidividualistic Asiatics our ancestors despised and so easily conquered.
FAIL.
Where does one begin? This is the philosophy of eugenics. And, at the risk of getting on my high horse, this class conceit and arrogance is a large part of what got us, as a society, into the statist mess we now inhabit and, without hyperbole, it is what led to the Holocaust. It is the driving force behind progressivism. It was the underpinning of much of the “Progressive Era” a century ago, and every time you think this odious belief system has crawled away under a rock to die, it reappears. I find it distressing that it would be promoted by a “libertarian”. But then, perhaps I should not be surprised. This belief is widespread.
It is nothing but a form of class consciousness- the polite term for which is “snobbery”. The nice upper/middle class person looks at themself and their nice little children and their friends and says, “Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the bestest of us all?” and says, “Why! It’s US!” And then they look at the seething mass of inferior humanity below them and starts to fear that they are being overwhelmed by the untermenschen and decides that, y’know, something must be done. And whatever that something is, it invariably isn’t very nice.
And then conservatives decide that letting the untermenschen breed is why our society is collapsing, and lefties decide that it’s why democracy has to be replaced by rule by committees of the wise, and now we find a libertarian blaming it for why we aren’t a nation of libertarians! Yet interestingly enough, anybody who makes the trivial effort to read through the social history of our nation will find the same underclass- the residuum as it was known in Victorian times, for instance- in existence, and the upper classes fretting about them. There they were, in the impoverished villages and teeming cities- uncouth, criminal, depraved, unlettered and breeding like flies, as the saying goes, drinking themselves stupid, and smoking and fucking and brawling and thieving and prostituting and menacingly accusing others of spilling their pints. Yet somehow these were the people who, on the orders of their “superiors”, were the cannon fodder that conquered a quarter of the globe. And got fuck all thanks for it.
Have a read of Henry Mayhew’s London Labour And The London Poor for a thorough descripion of the chavs of 1850, and don’t forget to stop and have a laugh at the explanation of how you can, the world over, spot the untermenschen by their funny shaped heads.
Now I appreciate that I am picking on just one paragraph from a much longer piece, which is not its main point. But the persistence of this eugenic ideology is pernicious, and something I believe to be intolerable. It is one of the driving forces of tehcnocratic oligarchy, and in the past it has led to the most appalling abuses- leaving out the nazis, we are still left with the history of eugenics laws in American states such as California, forced sterilisations, abortion campaigners talking of the survival of “the race”, of the incarceration of the poor in asylums for the feeble minded (poor Jean Gambell spent her life in an instutition because of those evil eugenics inspired laws) and so on. And it is, in the end, nothing but the fear and loathing felt by one class, who are closer to the reins of power, for another. It is a philosophy which is, ultimately and literaly, inhuman and whenever I see it, atheist that I am, I feel glad that it has always been opposed by Christians declaring the inherent dignity of every human being before God (very few people realise that the ferocious opposition to abortion and evolution in the USA grew out of a reaction to the designs of eugenicists a century ago). One may say, “Nobody is calling for eugenics these days”, but that is to miss the point; the underlying, and just plain wrong, moral panic that the masses are outbreeding a minority of superior higher class folks led there a century ago, and poisons liberty by declaring the greater mass of humanity untrustworthy- incapable- of choosing their own destiny, just as, for instance, if one declares that black people are racially inferior, then the conclusion that they must be somehow excluded from political power naturally follows. “We can’t stop the niggers voting, but we’ll make damned sure us white folks run the government”.
Shame on you, Sean. The lack of libertarians in our country has many causes, but impoverishment of the racial stock is not one of them.
Here’s G K Chesterton’s fabulous essay Eugenics And Other Evils, which demolishes the whole nonsense with glorious eloquence, and is as pertinent today as nearly a century ago when he wrote it.
Further to your point Ian, libertarian thought is, and must be, by its very nature, antithetical to this issue.
To a libertarian the most appropriate person to make decisions regarding a live lived is the person living it. This presupposes that person is capable of making those decisions in the first place. Any claim that the ‘masses’ can’t make their own decisions is the antithesis of freedom.
Anyone watched the film ‘Idiocracy’ lately?
All I have to say is ‘don’t take me with you if you go down this path’.
IanB writes: “One may say, ‘Nobody is calling for eugenics these days’, but that is to miss the point; the underlying, and just plain wrong, moral panic that the masses are outbreeding a minority of superior higher class folks led there a century ago,”
I certainly cannot say that I agree with the full extent of Sean Gabb’s libertarian views (and likewise IanB’s), but I do find those views as interestingly challenging in refining what I do think, and on where to draw the line in the more difficult cases.
From the above, IanB looks to me to be defining a new class of thinkers (perhaps neo-eugenicists), of whom he disapproves.
He then continues directly with: “and poisons liberty by declaring the greater mass of humanity untrustworthy- incapable- of choosing their own destiny, …”
Now, I was rather under the impression that this view was more prevalent among socialists and others holding to the greater desirable extent of the welfare state. In fact, I’m pretty sure that Sean Gabb views as so deficient they need help, a significantly lesser proportion of the population than do UK socialists.
Concerning the lower paid, I’d much rather a scheme that taxes them much less, and also avoids the various ‘poverty traps’ in our taxation and benefits system, so that they can support themselves, all-be-it very modestly, from their own labour.
I’m reminded of the proverb: “Necessity is the mother of invention.” Most of those that need to support themselves will find an acceptable way: provided they need to, and that no unnecessary obstacles are placed in their path.
Best regards
[...] August, 2009 by landedunderclass Cat-counter Ian B gives Dr. Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance both barrels, with a couple of reloads, for [...]
“Yet interestingly enough, anybody who makes the trivial effort to read through the social history of our nation will find the same underclass- the residuum as it was known in Victorian times, for instance- in existence….”
You’re saying, then, that the modern underclass is no greater (in numbers or percentage terms) than they used to be, and no more (or less) worse in behaviour? Morality-wise, if you will?
JuliaM, the best I can really say is that it’s hard to tell. But I think that the social histories that exist of say the nineteenth century indicate that the underclass is not a new phenomenon. My own opinion is that the situation now is no worse than then.
The primary difference was the underclass then worked down coal-mines for 29hrs a day. Now they watch Trisha on the rock and roll. But I agree with Ian that moral panics over the antics of the proles are very far from new.
On eugenics…
First off. I have met some very smart people of humble origins and a right load of chinless-wonders. Look at Prince Charles. If he ain’t the result of a massive eugenics program then I dunno who is.
A thought experiment.
I am supreme leader of Nickland and I decide we shall build a master-race. I get all the top “scientists” in and we map out a breeding program. Essentially we farm proles for digging ditches but we also need an innovative technological elite in order to keep up with our arms race with free-wheeling Ianland. So that isn’t so much farming as raising champions for Crufts. The immense governmental effort to ensure the “right” people bred would be enormous. It would also create an enviornment so stultifying that our innovators in their golden cages would not be able to create. True creativity comes from cross-pollinization of ideas sometimes almost at random.
The cockpit of 1920s Physics was Gottingen. Folks would sit in cafes scribbling equations on the marble table tops. Sometimes they would get stuck and instruct the waiter not to wipe the table. The next day they might well come back and find someone else had completed the proof. Our look at the melting pot of turn of the last century Vienna? Freedom of association is vital and if you allow that then sometimes you just might find those people fancy a bit of sex…
Even a “successful” eugenics program would result in a nightmare of stagnation. bertrand Russell made the same argument against Plato’s Republic BTW.
There is also, of course, the law of unintended consequences and frankly our knowledge of human genetics as it pertains to things like mental characteristics is pretty much zilch so it’s just dabbling at best.
For my moral objections - see Cats’ above.
One final thought. Anyone here think the “outbred by the lower orders moral panic” is somewhat similar to the “outbred by the Muslims one”? Our problem there is the ghettoization which is the fault of beardy clerics and multi-culti loons who enable them.
Nigel-
From the above, IanB looks to me to be defining a new class of thinkers (perhaps neo-eugenicists), of whom he disapproves.
First a minor nitpick- I don’t see any reason for the “neo” prefix, any more than I would call a modern christian a neochristian, or a modern fisherman a neo-angler.
I commented on this because I find this kind of thinking widespread among collectivists- the stereotypical educated, elitist american “liberal”- greens, etc, the movie “Idiocracy” is a typical example. I think libertarians can and should do better than that. If we stand for anything, it is respect for humanity in all its genuine “diversity”.
And the speculation that our collective national mindset has been significantly altered by a few decades of welfare is frankly silly. The people pushing us into the hive society are from the upper, not lower, eschelons. Polly Toynbee is most certainly not the offspring of a slattern from the slums.
I would have to disagree. I’m white working class and have lived most of my life in small mining towns. BNP heartland if you like.
The change I have seen in ‘my’ people over the last 20 years is very marked. The working class had an essential morality which has been heavily eroded. It’s not the sort of morality which would appeal to a Victorian commentator because it allows for heavy drinking, fighting and a certain amount of law breaking. But it was a positive thing.
I agree about eugenics though. People around my part of the world are a homogenous bunch and don’t tend to stray too far from their community. Why the same sort of families that produced kids who were OK in the 70’s are now producing little assholes can’t be down to genetics. They haven’t changed, it’s external factors.
My above comment is in reply to Ian at 10:03, just to avoid confusion.
HSLD,
My family on my mother’s side are from the same sort of place as you. And I concur to your opinion on such places. It’s industrial collapse partly and hopelessness and welfare and atomization which destroyed communities. One of the reason the kids have got worse in such places is that unrelated adults aren’t allowed in anyway to interact with them which resulted in the atomization. You can’t even tell a kid from down street off or (horrors) give ‘em a clip round the ear because you’ll be done by the rozzers and the social workers and for assault if you’re lucky… The peadophile panic is terrible in this respect. As is the decline in voluntary kids activities out of the orbit of the state. Who would be a scout-master now? And go through CRB checks or feel worried about seperating two kids fighting in case it involves touching them “inappropriately”.
Just guessing here. Mining communities, no more mining, high unemployment resulting in people losing faith in society and the “social contract”, kind of thing? I know that sounds terribly lefty.
What I mean is, during the major part of the C20, you had miners in the bosom of the state due to nationalised coal and guranteed jobs, probably a tight-knit community around the church also(?), once the state pulled the rug, they lose faith in society, commnity breaks down as a consequence?
I’m just speculating. It may be that old-fashioned socialism bought some peace from the lower classes, at the expense of the economy and massive industrial problems, kind of thing..?
I’d agree that eugenics is abhorrent to any freedom loving person.
But so is the idea that some of us should be taxed to the point that we cannot afford to have children so that our money can be used to subsidise the children of the profligate.
I would always argue vehemently that anyone who wishes to have children should be free to, but they should also bear any costs.
Can’t feed ‘em? Don’t breed ‘em!
IanB writes: “First a minor nitpick- I don’t see any reason for the “neo” prefix, …”
OK, minor but I’ll try a justification. Neo- (as in new). The earlier eugenicists were very much hands-on elitist technocrats, largely interested in active sterilisation of the ‘untermenschen’, or at least markedly reducing their breeding, and/or in supporting breeding of intelligent, strong and beautiful people, perhaps by centralised matchmaking. The neo-eugenicists (my naming), as I understand it from your main post are different: merely whinging and labelling the ‘untermenschen’ untrustworthy and incapable, as in the second part of: “One may say, ‘Nobody is calling for eugenics these days’, but that is to miss the point; the underlying, and just plain wrong, moral panic that the masses are outbreeding a minority of superior higher class folks [led there a century ago, and] poisons liberty by declaring the greater mass of humanity untrustworthy- incapable- of choosing their own destiny,”
IanB: “I commented on this because I find this kind of thinking widespread among collectivists- the stereotypical educated, elitist american “liberal”- greens, etc, … ”
Well, I don’t dispute your mentioning something along those lines, though I saw your mention as mostly that of “the ‘Progressive Era’ a century ago”, though I do acknowledge your briefer mention that it is widespread today. However, I interpreted the main thrust of your post as your severe disappointment in finding this view in a significant libertarian such as Sean Gabb.
IanB: “And the speculation that our collective national mindset has been significantly altered by a few decades of welfare is frankly silly. The people pushing us into the hive society are from the upper, not lower, eschelons.”
I don’t agree with that, though of course any view is highly subjective. Firstly, people across pretty much the whole demographic range are at least somewhat convinced of the goodness of the welfare state for us all: hence widespread support for centralised funding and even centralised provision of the substantial majority of healthcare, education and the old-age pension. Secondly, and differently, those ‘untermeschen’ (an ever-increasing proportion, it seems to me, who we pay to feed and house without their working) are going to be very difficult to get off the teat, even if it was not of their own volition (much or at all) to suck onto it in the first place.
I’m glad you have emphasised your view (on which we are now more clearly agreed) that modern collectivists are significantly guilty of this (neo-) or continued eugenic thinking, as well as Sean Gabb and his libertarian like.
Best regards
Sean Gabb is my very good and deeply honourable friend of many, many years, and many battles. He would not knowingly and deliberately make claims that reinforced the horrible GramscoFabiaNazi idea of eugenics, than he or I could fly through the air like Gordon Brown’s pigs.
Perhaps he was tired or angry or did not think.
Perhaps, also, all you people, there are now, owing to GramscoFabiaNazism, things which cannot be said - only thought. And this will go in time if you are all not careful.
Perhaps libertarians are merely those people left, alive, and there are not now very many, who feel that it is right to say anything which seems to have the force of logic behind it.
Perhaps we are witnessing the end-times.
Perhaps it’s the “Stereotypical American/Greens/liberals” who actually want to practise Eugenics?
And I _/do/_ include the British ones here, perhaps more violently motivated and even more viciously vindictive?
Perhaps Sean was merely commenting on an idea, but, sadly, not saying who was actually driving it and who was doing what to whom? Perhaps there was not room in the essay.
David, I can’t speculate as to what Sean might have been trying to say, if we presume he either addled or truncated the message. All we have is what he said, which is quite obviously from the quotation a speculation that welfare causes more welfare recipients to breed, who are genetically collectivist like “Asiatics”, leading to a change in the (genetic) national character. THere doesn’t seem to be another obvious interpretation of the paragraph.
Once any person broadcasts an opinion, it is something which others might agree with or disagree with, and support or criticise. I am generally a fan of Sean’s work in many respects and was rather surprised to find this in it, which was what motivated to present my own opinion on the subject. Sean is a public figure in libertarianism, and I am sure must be aware by now that when writing for the public, one must be very sure to say what one wishes to be seen to be saying.
“JuliaM, the best I can really say is that it’s hard to tell. But I think that the social histories that exist of say the nineteenth century indicate that the underclass is not a new phenomenon.”
Oh, I don’t doubt that.
But the reason I asked is because I read two accounts today of elderly men being viciously attacked and killed for trivialities by younger men - younger by 40 years - and that seemed a little out of kilter to me.
As HSLD put it, that old white working class ‘morality’ seems to be rarer and rarer…
Perhaps NickM is right, and we need heavy, arduous manual labour back, to keep them too tired to cause mayhem?
That is not what I said Julia!
I was replying to HSLD in a very specific context.
All we have is what he said, which is quite obviously from the quotation a speculation that welfare causes more welfare recipients to breed…
Really? I didn’t get that idea from quotation at all. So obviously either you’re seeing something that isn’t there or I’m missing something that is. And I’ll be the first to suggest to the latter is all too possible, but what I’m reading in that paragraph is pretty unremarkable.
Intelligence is generally heritable. We know that. Tim Worstall had a post about it a while back which linked to some study or another that demonstrated it. Intelligence and ability are found in all classes, of course. But as Mr. Gabb points out, “if there is reasonable social mobility, those with ability will move into the higher classes.” Upward social ability is usually accompanied by higher salaries and greater wealth. Greater wealth tends to lead to lower birth rates, as does the higher relative tax burden the middle classes must carry to pay for the welfare system. All he seems to me to be saying is that in a socially mobile society the brightest and most able tend to concentrate in the group that, ironically, has the lower birth rate, which eventually changes the make up of the society.
Now that may be a silly argument. But I can’t see any moral panic in it, just a statement of evolutionary change in a society. But like I said, I’m more likely than not missing something.
Oh for fuck’s sake, RobtE. You can claim that anything doesn’t say something if you deliberately ignore half of it. Really, this is the sort of pointless fuckwittish argumentation that makes the internet so pointless. Read the damned thing, then come back with a sensible point. Otherwise, don’t bother wasting bandwidth.
“That is not what I said Julia!
I was replying to HSLD in a very specific context.”
It’s a great idea though, and when I become Ruler of the Known World, I’ll give you credit for it, and name the first salt mine after you..
I’m not sure what the panic is.
Since the welfare class consists of chavs, gangstas and islamo-nutters, then when push comes to shove they’ll fight it out amongst themselves.
And the tosspots will stand on the sidelines tutting as usual.
The panic is to try and keep interventions in human reprodduction of the table.
You think interventions in markets are bad?
There is worse.
Thanks Julia,
Can I work down it? The atmosphere will do wonders for my fucked lungs! Seriously.
Ian,
Opinions on genetic differences becomes eugenics and therefore “bad” when they become a rationale for intervention. Given that Mr Gabb is against intervention, but in favour of disintervention, ie removing impediments to excel, that is not where he’s going.
I don’t really get what you’re saying about the passage relating to “funny shaped heads.” But personally, the unfathomable slaughter of Britain’s best men in the two world wars seem to me a reasonable factor in the loss of vigour within Her borders over the rest of the century. Notice you seem to regard many of them as the chavs, but in the Great War at least that wasn’t the case.
“If we stand for anything, it is respect for humanity in all its genuine “diversity”.
And the speculation that our collective national mindset has been significantly altered by a few decades of welfare is frankly silly. The people pushing us into the hive society are from the upper, not lower, eschelons. Polly Toynbee is most certainly not the offspring of a slattern from the slums.”
You’ll have to make value judgements sooner or later. And you did, with Pol Polly. Although in fairness, she may not be human.
And yes, it is the upper echelons doing the pushing. But its their offspring who will be competing in the future with an emasculated, emaciated “masses”. And winning - nepotism is nothing new. The selfish gene at work?
“Frankly silly?” You could postulate that a long time ago when we were all hunter gatherers, the most successful and vigorous men got to have the most kids, because they could support them and were attractive to more females. Nowadays in the UK it’s the least vigorous who have the most kids. Because they get more child benefit that way, and never have to work.
Notice there isn’t a value judgement there, or a statement that they need to be sterilised. My own suggestion would be to abolish the welfare state. That’s not eugenics.
Chesterton himself says that the two components of eugenics are a moral basis (”common to all”) and a scheme of social application. Since libertarians such as Gabb do not go for “schemes of social application” and only want to end them all, I don’t really see what your argument is all about.
Unfortunately, it seems that you may actually be falling into the trap of political correctness - which if true is horrifying and you must go out pimping at once until you get over it.
There is nothing wrong with eugenics, and of COURSE Eugenics is a valid science.
Ask all those sheiks who have made billions by practicing it on race horses. Or farmers with a prize bull.
The only problem with Eugenics today is the fake moral indignation that the “rulling classes”, and the fundementalist, radical liberals, tell us should be the response, when it is practiced on… na, “Humans”.
But would you call an arsehole who decides to stone a Father to death whilst the Father is playing cricket with his son, or the prick that beat an old guy to death with a tree branch, because he was asked to move his feet, HUMAN???
Yes I would call them human. I have to accept that they are thinking beings with free will, otherwise I would not be justified in thinking they were evil.
If they were not human then I would not be able to apply human standards of moral judgement to them.
Breeding farm animals is fine, breeding human beings is a great big no-no.
The human race did not get to where it is today because it allowed the window cleaner to breed with the Queen.
In fact it is only SINCE these barriers have been “broken down” that the problems in society have occured. Allow it to continue and you will be back in the caves within a century.
XX CountingCats
August 19, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Yes I would call them human. I have to accept that they are thinking beings with free will, otherwise I would not be justified in thinking they were evil. XX
Society puts down dangerous dogs. What is the difference?
What is the difference.
They are not dogs, they are human beings. Thats the difference.
Treating people as animals is repugnant. Even people as evil as this.
Von Spreuth,
So how do you classify yourself? A Queen or a window cleaner?
ANOTHER group of “humans”;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207671/Cyclist-critically-ill-dragged-bike-savagely-beaten-street-thugs.html
Even if this was going to have an effect, you can’t blame anything happening right now today on it there just hasn’t been time.
Now, if there is reasonable social mobility, those with ability will move into the higher classes. If, for any reason, these higher classes have a lover birth rate than the rest of the population, there will, over time, be a decline in the average quality of the population.
Also, I don’t think I’m convinced social mobility is all that reasonable. Even someone with good “natural intelligence” — for whatever that means, is unlikely to amount to much if their parents are relying on state teachers.
There’s a difference between observing differences between groups of people and treating them differently as a result.
I resent certain welfare recipients demanding that I fund their lifestyle. I want to stop policies that encourage them to think that they have a right to my labour. I don’t want to kill them or stop them breeding. I just don’t want them to assume that if they breed they have a right to force me to pay for it.
Von Spreuth,
I think breeding horses (maybe even humans) to run fast is - as I pointed out earlier - much easier than breeding them to compose symphonies or find solutions to the Einstein Field Equations.
“In fact it is only SINCE these barriers have been “broken down” that the problems in society have occured. Allow it to continue and you will be back in the caves within a century.”
And we didn’t have tumultous history with peasants revolts and civil wars and all manner of chaos beforehand?
The problem with “them” and “us” thinking is that it always means the “them” is whatever is discernably below the “us” however defined which is of course somewhat of a moveable feast is it not. And an arbitary one. I look after quite a chunk of land and that involves a contract gardener. He pushes a Honda mower for a living but he also knows Latin. Where does he fit?
TDK,
I agree 100%. As an earlier commentator put it, “If you can’t feed ‘em, don’t breed ‘em”. Exactly but that applies as a totally general rule. It’s exactly how I feel about middle-class couples demanding the “right” for IVF on the NHS. Yeah, it’s a few grand put that is a spit in the ocean compared to feeding, clothing, educating and all the rest for 18 years and then sending them to college… If you can’t pay the tab then don’t order the Martini.
XX NickM
August 20, 2009 at 4:52 am
Von Spreuth,
I think breeding horses (maybe even humans) to run fast is - as I pointed out earlier - much easier than breeding them to compose symphonies or find solutions to the Einstein Field Equations. XX
I am not saying that can, or even should be done. However when you get scum that rapes, assaults, kills, burgles, fiddles with kiddys etc time and time again, then it is quite easy to get rid of it.
And THAT should be considered after the second and DEFFINATELY done after the third conviction.
The IMMEDIATE families of such, should be sterelised. We do not WANT them in the gene pool.
The IMMEDIATE families of such, should be sterelised. We do not WANT them in the gene pool.
vomit
http://wwwsitedoingp.cn/thumb/mature/mature29.jpg
Pictures Of Mature Men Naked Needs Of Older People In SocietyMature Cherry Tree Timber ValueMature Immature Oil Fields Granny In Thong Stretching Granny Old PussyHorny Old Granny Sex Pics - Aunt Grannys Pantry Mature Lanzarote, Mature Anal Whores !!! http://dsiaero.com/DIYForum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33398 - Vibe Gt Versus Older Muscle Cars
Older Model Saeco Family Mature Sex BondageOlder Models Of Paolo Soprani AccordionsGoogle Mature Porn Hardcore Granny Free Porn Video Mature Lady OrnMature Tails - Black Mature Sexy Mature Gay Men Free Fims, Older Mother Pregnancy !!! http://spartak-nalchik.ru/forum/album_comment.php?comment_id=77766#77766 - Dawn Rae Mature
Gay Grannys Younger Women Older Men Ageless LoveMatures HuntingRaising Older Puppies Sex With Older Women In There Older Smith Wesson Model 60Older Craftsman Power Tools - Mature Couples Teach Teens Older Version Of Music Match, Mature Women Door Window Pillow Tits !!! http://dsiaero.com/DIYForum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33399 - Abused Elders Or Older Battered Women
Older Woman Get Young Man Dark Hair Granny PanniesMature Asian Movie GalleryMature Webcam Sex Mature Pichunter Tgp Mature Women Executives SexIncredimail Older Builds - Granny Thumbnail Galleries Free Older Women Riding Harleys, Youtube Long Form Granny Movie Galleries !!! http://technologyinnovationaward.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14844 - Role Of Older Technologies
nod26e08po09
http://wwwsitedoingp.cn/thumb/mature/mature28.jpg
“It’s a great idea though, and when I become Ruler of the Known World, I’ll give you credit for it, and name the first salt mine after you.. :)”
i will be so happy if you give me credit for the cat’s factory