Thanks for the link! I very, very much appreciated Theory of Power. Much love from the Backwoods of Vermont.
Jeff have you read much on the work of EF Schumacher? (Small is Beautiful) - Whenever I read anything on Rhizome I can't help thinking of similarities.
I've read "Small is Beautiful," and seen the Dymaxion Map and his world-game, but should spend more time with his writings. My overall concern is that he doesn't address what I consider to be the crux of the issue--dependency and hierarchy. I'm working on something to better expound my reasoning here (hinted at in 'theory of power' and 'hamlet economy,' etc.), but the key notion for me is this: dependence leads to hierarchy which leads necessarily to unsustainable growth and marginalization of human ontogeny (by making the human input a factor to be economically optimized). The solution is minimal self-sufficiency, anthropological self-awareness of the need to avoid hierarchal structures, and an active and conscious creation of rhizome structure through the fair/festival-type structure. Easier said than done, but while I think Schumacher has some brilliant points, it still seems to be addressing symptoms not causes...
Very interesting. So far I've just glanced over this, but it seems you might be interested in the work of the Japanese medieval philosopher Ando Shoeki. One of his main concerns was how to create a society without exploitation.
Thanks, Rice Farmer... I picked up a used Ando Shoeki book from Amazon, sounds very interesting.On a related note, this seems like a great example of how Amazon--a large, centralized business--can be used valuable even in an attempt to move toward decentralization. Books on Ando Shoeki seem to be very few and far between, and their ability to link a huge network of independent used book sellers to one search engne is great. However, I would rather see that same network linked via some kind of emergent network, perhaps using Ripple for the financial transaction. Does anyone know of someone working on such a system?
I have a theory that the types of people that devote themselves to climbing their way to the tops of hierarchies will always exist. So it would be better to kind of give them what they want in sustainable ways. Like for example having them be Feudal Lords. Wealth would be once again tied to land ownership. But the agriculture would be sustainable. I really feel that economic freedom, under democracy is what destroys the environent. Everyone struggling to get rich through industry and having the initial freedom to pursue this. This is what transformed what is now the formerly pristine US into what it is today, not hierarchy. I think civilization would have spread a lot more slowly had the British won the Civil War and America had remained a group of Colonies. What would you think of a rhizome structure, with a feudal land owning structure super imposed over it? Semi-autonamous organic farmers, paying taxes to a ruling class? (This ruling class already exists, I am not advocating the creation of a new one)
Well, I don't like the notion of transitioning toward feudal lords, but then setting the bar at some utopian vision is doomed to failure. The relevant question--which you bring up here--seems to be what is realistic. From such a pragmatic perspective, I think that you're absolutely right in the sense that there will always be people who want to climb the hierarchy (well, to be at the top, not so much to do the climbing). That's genetically ingrained, and is precisely why were're in this mess in the first place. To me, the issue seems to be consciously choose and bolster cultural institutions that make decentralization and self-sufficiency self-reinforcing, as an institutional means to balance (not eliminate) the tendency of hierarchy to accrete and intensify.One thing ensconced in the feudal system that seems worth thining about (I'm not yet sure to what degree it should be "endorsed") is the notion of connectivity to land. I don't mean in the sense of the serf being tied to the land, but more in the sense of land being tied to people--that a given parcel can only be "owned" by the person who directly uses it, and cannot be owned by a non-user and then rented to a productive slave class. If this notion, in the form of a normative moral dictum rather than a rule (which must be enforced by its own hierarchy), manages to spread, maybe we could see something that rhymes with feudalism, but is a bit closer to utopia than hell on earth? It seems that Ando Shoeki criticized the Japanese feudal system extensively, so I'll be interested in what he has to say on the topic. Also worth noting (again, explicitly without endorsement), that Hitler tied small farms to familes to avoid the industrialization (aka accretion of hierarchy in) of agriculture and to appease the rural middle class farmer in the '30s (see Reich's "Mass Psychology of Fascism" for a treatment of this)...
Some other information regarding Ando Shoeki: His philosophy has enjoyed a bit of a renaissance here in Japan over the last couple of decades, and there are even societies dedicated to the study of his thought. So if you read Japanese, there is a wealth of material available now.There is a Japanese farmer of my acquaintance who might be described as something like the modern prophet of Ando Shoeki. He has written a number of books, one of which is titled "Down with the Cities." As you can see from the title, it is a bit extreme, but still worth a read as it contains a number of interesting ideas. Ando's philosophy is a major influence. I translated that book many years ago, and it's posted on Project Gutenberg for free downloading.Upon reading the book, you will imagine those old films of Hitler giving impassioned speeches, and wonder if it's safe to get near the author. But I visited him twice, and was surprised to find he is actually a very quiet, unassuming, and polite person.
Yeah, I agree about that idea of people being connected to the land. The thing is, what we have is a "manufacturing aristocracy." That's what Tocqueville predicted would happen.People nowadays have called it a "corprotocracy" like Perkins "Confessions of an Economic hit man." Initially, though, Democracy kind of leveled everything out. We had small time capitalism. Because in America everyone used their freedom to get rich as fast as possible. This is what i think kicked off the industrial revolution, not hierarchy. Greed on a populist level. Greed for "stuff" as well as greed to be rich. But the thing is manufacturing degrades people. The work is degrading. So eventually "gentlemen" created big conglomerations. Big enterprises. They were interested in the bussiness end. Like Carnegie. he had no idea how to make steel. He knew how to make an empire.So then a new type of aristocracy emerged that was kind of disconnected from the land or any real sense of duty to the workers. So now its to the point where these multinationals don't even care about the US and will just go to the lowest paid labor anywhere in the world. I say "gentlemen" because this is what the classical philosophers called this type. If basic human nature hasn't changed since the late paleolithic period, its changed less since the classic period. These are people that want glory and honor, not just comfort and security like most people. But there have always been the "priestly caste" as well, the philosophers, that are able to influence them. Artists and poets too. Alexander needed Aristotle. Because honor has to be conferred to gentlemen by society. They don't live in a vacuum. So I think you are right on about using culture to influence these types. Because they aren't going away. they exist now and they always crop up again, despite various social movements toward wanting eveything to be continually levelled. But on the other hand though, when people are most free they persue wealth. The means they employ are usually destructive to the environment. I think social stratification, ironic as it may seem, might offer more in the way of preserving the environment, then democracy. The freest most democratic nations are the biggest energy consumers. And just as ironic, people with no sense of hope of improving their economic status are often very cheerful, live in the moment type people.
One more thing I would like to add about rhizome:Its a natural way to live for a lot of people....when they have no other choice. This seems to be the case in the third world where substinence living, even "substinence affluence" is still possible. There will be a bunch of people living off the land much as they have for millenia, cashless economy etc. then they hear about some city with bright lights and they will migrate by the millions to slums and shanty towns and drink polluted water, eat garbage, live in the midst of open sewers...just for a one on a million chance of being rich. And that's probably what the odds are. Very often, the aboriginal way of life is being destroyed and the people have less of a choice, but this isn't always the case. Most people will seek to live in civilization. They get bored living out in the country, when they have been exposed to civilization. This same phenomena goes on all over the third world. In the US we have "primitivists" an "back to the landers" but in the third world I think there are actually places this could still be possible, but its not what people want. So there is another problem for egalitarianism. Getting people to live sustainably when the vast majotity of people have demonstrated they don't want to, when given a choice.
I think two things are needed--neither of which is likely to happen on a large scale, I'm afraid, but both of which are very possible on an individualized or small scale.The first is an appreciation for simplicity and simple pleasures. As Epicurus said (paraphrasing), if a little doesn't make you happy, neither will a lot.The second is for what I have called "anthropological self-awareness" (like how the characters in the movie Scream know the cliche rules of horror movies while simultaneously being inside one, only for anthropology). We need to understand the greater, systemic implications of our individual choices extrapolated to society as a whole, so that we can understand the criticality of individual action in changing that society. And we all need this--Plato's notion of philosopher kings is a sure path to totalitarianism because it invests this knowledge only in the few. These few become the rules.I don't have any naive notion that this will actually happen wholesale among a broader society. However, I think that it can happen with individuals, and then with networks of individuals creating self-reliant niches. Maybe (emphasis on a big maybe here from a pragmatic perspective) such scattered networks could serve as an inspiration for broader society to adopt *after* that broader society's former model (e.g. our current model) collapses, but maybe not. Even if a collapsed broader society just relapses into a more localized, more feudal existence, I think that these parallel networks could still exist.
In the article you linked to, I really liked the ants. I find ants fascinating in general. The article pointed out that ants don't require "managers" they just each do their own thing and the ant society basically "self organizes." The thing is though, its a very rigid caste system in a way. They don't need managers because the ants have no "desire" to be anything other than what they are. Soldier ants soldier. Drones, work. The queen lays eggs. Some ant species are pretty complex. They are polymorphic, there are several morphs. I think its possible that people are somewhat polymorphic as well. But nowhere near as polymorphic as ants. But what I am getting at, is that a rigid class structure may work. It works for ants. Its totally anti-democratic, but it could perhaps be evolving. We could be as a species be becoming more like ants. To us, its just as likely that we could be born a drone and want to be queen. But what if society was stratified in such a way that more people were happy with their station in life? I think consumer society as a whole is built on unhappy people being deluded into thinking that consumption will make them happy. This is how corporations derive all their wealth, selling people useless things that people have been deluded into thinking will make them happy when it won't. Some people see through it, and choose to live simply but most don't. I think it would be better to channel this "robber baron" energy that is out there, into somthing positive. Because its a force to be reckoned with. These are the shakers and movers of the world. The people behind the Military industrial financial complex, or whatever you want to call it, are the people that get things done. Ultimately destructive things. But they are the doers. Every thing that would counter balance this action, is a reaction after the fact. Intellectual and social critiques, and fixing the problems always requires self sacrifice and people making more intelligent choices, being better people basically, and it never works. So what they tells me is that there are smart people out there, smarter than the shakers and movers. There are wise people, in the world that are maybe, a little "too egalitarian" maybe they underestimate how wise they are, and over estimate the wisdom of the masses. But I mean, in terms of taking action before civilization destroys itself, in desperate times, maybe their are things that become more important than democracy. Maybe we need some powerful ecologically minded despots to make the types of changes needed and then when their time is past, we can go back to the herd more or less leading itself, which is how I look at democracy.I am just saying, maybe in terms of thinking of what could possibly be done maybe democratic ideals hold people back too much. Maybe having everyone be totally free and deomocratic and saving some semblence of civilization while living in harmony with the earth are not totally paralell goals. I mean if one had to choose between democracy destroying the planet and somthing else that is more like a caste system preserving it, what should one choose?
Maybe look at it like this: How can people be forced into a system that ultimately works better, but which people are unlikely to choose and adopt on their own? I mean assuming its possible to come up with a better system, and rhizome or somthing similar is it? So that's the first part of the problem. The second part is implimenting it. If its a system that would work, and allow some semblence of civilization, plus allow people to live in harmonry with the eco-sphere-its a really worthwile thing. Its probably the highest thing a person could dovote their thinking to. A lofty endeavor. Its altruistic, in the best sense. It benefits everyone. I am thinking the best way to implement it, would be turning it into some type of powerful religion for mass consumption. Plus, convincing robber baron types through, modifying it slightly, that its a way for them to gain glory and honor and live an opulent life. Because these types crop up again and again. the alternative would be to kill them all off and remove these traits from the human gene pool. Which how feasible is that? Plus I am open to the fact that there is a higher wisdom in the gene pool as a whole. I say put these types to use. Imagine an Alexander the Great, conquering the world and making it green? The alaternative is having everyone adopt a sustainable lifestyle freely by choice. I think choice will have to be a big part of it long term but maybe people need a push first. Maybe this anthropological awareness can be part of the religious doctrine. It will be the same message but through a different route and more in keeping with how most human beings naturally behave.
Theo_Musher,Why not take advantage of the the corporate structure already present in our economy.Take a concept like permaculture. Arguably a model like this or similar is what is needed to make farming and culture sustainable. Could this idea go corporate?Perhaps a corporation could "own" large chuncks of land to produce commodities for the market. The catch is that it produces the commodities following the rules of permaculture. All the products off the land are produced sustainably and the people who work for the corporation also live sustainably. A properly designed permaculture system would beat conventional farming on net energy use, chemical use and in an energy constrained future may be able to compete financially with conventional agriculture.The corporate owners might only see profit, but in the meantime the land is being transformed back into something that is closer to a functional ecosystem and the workers can enjoy a life closer to what our bodies are adapted to.
Yes!That's how I see things taking shape. Hopefully there can also be some independant hamlet communities, but I see corporations transitioning long term into somthing akin feudal Lordships. I think this type of aristocracy would be better than an aristocracy based on seducing the populace into buying useless products.
Hi theo_musher,The question then is how to sell this style of land practice to the corporations.I know a few people who have dedicated their lives to figuring this out. One is working on developing a permaculture system to replace the midwest grain belts cropping system with something more appopropriate. Hybrid hazelnuts and hybrid chestnuts are to become his new soybean and corn replacements for the companies to buy into. Hazelnuts are 60% oil similar to olive oil and high protein. Chestnuts are high starch similar to corn. Both of these crops are native to the climate and area and are perrenial. They require little inputs and in the long run will provide a greater energy return than either corn or soybeans.These two crops could be the corporations focus and could even be mechanically harvested with conventional farm machinery. However these two crops also will support an ecosystem beyond themselves. In the midst of chestnuts and hazelnuts there could be livestock grazing, berry farming, vegetable plots between rows and little hamlet villages in here and there for "employees".It is interesting to note that formerly the midwest and a large portion of the east of the US was a oak hazel savannah and it had the highest caloric density of any ecosystem per mile. Perhaps an an energy constrained future mimicking this pattern will be a way to avoid ecological and energy collapse simotaneously.Oh and here are some links on hybrid hazelnuts.http://www.badgersett.com/info/woodyag1.htmlAn intersting buisness model...http://permergy.com/
Interesting thinking...I actually wrote a post on a coppice hybrid hazelnut/chestnut system a while back:http://www.jeffvail.net/2006/07/nuts-horticulture.htmlI think that corporations can lead a transition, but they need a fundamental constitutional adjustment before this can happen.Thom Hartman (in his more radical days before becoming an Air America radio host) wrote an excellent book on the constitutional nature of corporations and the resulting problems of perpetual growth, detached interest, etc.Fundamental issues: Corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize return. In other words, they have to grow. They can be carefully structured in ways to make them principle-driven and governed by negative-feedback loops, but this is almost universally not the case with existing corporations, and requires very specialized formation skills that few lawyers have. I think that affecting this kind of transition in corporate structure first requires an understanding of the growth inherent in hierarchal structures, the problem inherent in institutionalized growth (unsustainability), and the fundamental demand of growth and centralization whenever you combine dependency and peer-polity interaction. So there is no fundamental reason why corporations couldn't lead the way--in fact they could (theoretically) do so even better than non-corporate forms if they were properly bound by a new set of fiduciary duties, etc. However, this would require EITHER A) a radical transformation in the constitutional nature of corporations combined with a surviving structure of the rule of law to enforce that new system (which I see as problematic as it requires a very high level of societal complexity surviving into the distant future), OR B) a morality/taboo/norm-driven system of enforcing such a structure. This second option seems to be the way in which lower-complexity societies have traditionally organized to address these issues, and seems to me the most likely method of doing so in the more distant future. I think Theo's references to feudalism are on the right track here, though where on the spectrum between feudalism (which is actually a quite complex societal structure) and the simpler tribal structure the future actually lands will probably be largely place-dependent (depending on the density of population and resources still possible in the future). I think that in lower resource/population-density regions there will be much more room to fashion innovative societal structures that focus on fulfilling human ontogeny & exploring spirituality, etc., whereas my concern with areas that I see as being much more resource & population dense in a post-collapse future (such as the Pacific Northwest, which is often seen as a future eco-utopia) will be in much more danger of sliding down the totalitarian side of the scale.On that note (totalitarianism), I'd highly recommend Karl Popper's critique of Plato's totalitarian tendencies (and the dangers thereof) in "The Open Society and its Enemies."
I guess when I look at corporations, I look at them more in terms of the types of people drawn to them. Like, for example, what would these people be doing if they weren't rich businessmen? For example people like George Bush, Mitt Romney etc. People that are part of the corporate world, and also the political world, with family connections to both worlds. The ruling class basically. As far as how corporations are structured in terms of the growth economy, that may change, but people don't change quite so fast. I am saying how different is a George Bush or Mitt Romney, to aristocrats in ancient Athens or Rome? They seem pretty similar to me. Similar types. Every adult is a citizen, under our type of democracy, yet Senators and Presidents somehow tend to all be ariostocrats from aristocratic families. My thinking is that these types of people aren't going to simply dissapear, if the dollar were to be hyper-inflated and then collapse due to a worldwide oil shortage. And the types of people that were slaves in the Roman Empire aren't going to dissappear either. These types are wage workers. I think history has determined that there is never going to be a workers Utopia, workers will always work for other people. Plus, I am assuming at least some upper class people are seeing the handwriting on the wall and preparing. So I am thinking eventually people heading corporations, or more likey think tanks, will get the idea to buy up lots and lots of land and get into organic farming with permacultural techniques, converting all this money into real wealth either before or after the dollar collapses. I am thinking maybe history will move backwards in a way to mercantilism. I am thinking in terms of peoples expectations. People have gotten used to governments and corporations solving their problems. People that lead government and corporations are used to being in charge. Corporations and governments will probably change a lot, maybe in ways similar to the ideas in "the Shield of Achilles." But I don't think people are ready for power relationships to totally change and have everyone be independant and self sufficient.
I think some people are, I think people like that are hold overs from Pioneer days. Libertarian types. Ron Paul fans. Another thing I am thinking is that maybe some areas will be forgotten about and people will be left to fend for themselves. But as far as people being left to their own devices, I don't see them building rhizomes, unless I am misunderstanding you about what it is. I see people forming little insular communities and being at continual low level warfare with and in mutual suspicion of, their neighbors, because that is how I believe primitive tribal people behave, when looked at objectively and not romantically. That how tribal people in New Guinea and the Amazon and in the South Pacific are. That's why there are so many language groups packed into an area. Because they are insular and warlike. So that's why I look to some type of feudal structure superimposed over rhizome. It creates some over arching principle for people to organize themselves around. It allows violence to monopolized by an upper class which keeps the peace. It allows communication and trade over large areas. The rhizome is there, in terms of interdependant sustainable communities. But not totally free. There is still some centralized control. I see a need for an upper class and also urban centers too, just not continual growth. In some kind of a state of more or less stasis, power relationships will kind of be in stasis, too. It will be entrenched in a way. It looks like I am writing a book here...But this is really getting me thinking.
Interesting I've been thinking about the same style of overarching hierarchy ruling a localized rhizome system. I've also been thinking quite abit about the concept of growth in this society. Certainly unilimitied growth in a finite world isn't going to happen, but aren't there other commodities such as information, knowledge, and art that can grow or evolve forever?What I have never got is how the big power hungry guys even enjoy all the stuff they have accumulated. Personally i think this measure of wealth is just ridiculous. I agree there are always some that want power, but maybe the bulk of America can shift away from our materialistic standard of wealth. Of course i just never got the desire for house and piles of stuff, admitedly I can't imagine not wanting to spend a good amount of time towards spirituality, art and of course cruising the web.
The reason I see a need for an overarching hierarchy is because I can't envision large scale endeavor without one.I think if social structures become small and localized they also become insular and isolated from one another. The thing with corporations and their responsibility too grow is that they suck resources to the top of a pyramid. So that's destructive, but they foster long range communication networks. Empires connect and organize people. Can people be organized and able to communicate long range without hierarchy? What would prevent people from retreating into small m utually hostile tribal societies?
First and foremost I'd like to deeply thank you for such a fascinating book, A theory of power.There is just too much information condensed in those elegant 50 pages...it is a really fucking powerful tool bro!I first started becoming aware of overpopulation and environmental issues with Aldous Huxley's Brave new world and the revisited stuff...and I've been kinda paranoid for some time. But you gave me both enlightment and hope like no other did before. Thanks a whole lot from a 28 year old kid from Buenos Aires.
perhaps this is a silly question, but i'm not sure why we need/want large-scale projects. isn't the strength of a rhizome in it's inherent "bottom-up" approach?-jhereg
Well, if one is concerned with the whole earth and humanity as a whole, wouldn't that be considered large scale?
actually, if your concern is the global community as a whole, that says nothing about the actions that you take or endorse.in other words, you can be as concerned as you want about the earth as a whole, but that doesn't mean a large-scale project/endeavor is required (or desired) to have an impact.-jhereg
Here's a section of an email discussion with Theo on Leo Strauss that I seems appropriate to share:I just finished Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies," which it seems Strauss critiques at length (Popper critiques Plato's totalitarian tendencies). If nothing else, the myths required for a state to function--and by implication, those that must be altered or dispelled in order to achieve any alternative order--seems like a fascinating concept.As much as I'd like to think that a broad-based rhizome society could include "the masses," I think I need to pragmatically align with your thinking here--"the masses" probably aren't capable of the kind of independent thought necessary to make such a system work. I don't know if it is more desirable to try to work within the kind of meta-structure that is (probably) inevitably necessary in light of the masses, or to abandon the masses to whatever (theoretically "worse") system they would otherwise evolve into while building a parallel rhizome structure (under the theories that A) it would be better for those inside these parallel rhizome structures, and B) they could potentially act as a counter-weight to the tendency of the larger society). I see it, to some degree, as the dichotomy between order and the wild, much along the lines of Hakim Bey's distinction between the State and Terra Incognita. Could a small rhizome "open the map" from a psychological perspective, checking the (otherwise "inevitable"?) abuses of the state? Maybe. Or am I just trying to justify the creation of what I think will be the best situation for myself and my family with this argument that it is also best for "society"? That seems just as likely, but I'm not sure it's any worse of a justification. It seems to me that, if society finds a way to maintain complexity in light of energy descent, it will be "worse" than it is today ("worse" in a sense of fulfilling human ontogeny and facilitating spiritual existence--which sounds like a load of crap, but is the best criteria I can think of in light of my general tendency toward moral relativism). If this future state is "worse," then I want to exist in some alternative, and it seems imminently more possible to exist in a parallel alternative than to modify the entire course of human destiny. I think that some kind of two-path option for humans is even desirable...those who wish to be led can live that existence (and so can those who wish to lead), and those who wish to exist as sovereigns over only themselves can also do so within "rhizome" (here, akin to "running away to join the circus")--and the availability of rhizome acts to check the abuses of those leading the state because it offers an alternative to those being oppressed. Not an alternative that is too readily or easily adopted (and therefore not enough of a threat to the state to force it to take decisive action against rhizome), but an alternative none the less.
Well, on further reflection here is what i think, Jeff. If someone wants to "save civilization" I think that would involve some type of hierarchy and dependence. Those things would have to be factored in. Because there can be no civilization without that. But why should that be a goal? Mybe that's not the most worthy goal. Its just hard right now. There is so much dispair. Because people want to make some kind of contribution, but it looks like any contribution one could make will be in vain. People need to have faith in a system to perpetuate the system. Maybe being mainly concerned with one self and ones family is a better goal, but if everyone simply concerned themselves with that, there would be no complex society, no civilization. None of the negative things but also none positive things within it. We know this because these tribal groups everyone points to that lived in rhizome like societies and in harmony with the environment had no advanced culture, like alphabets for example. So if you like literature, science things like that, that require advanced culture and linear time to perpetuate, you'd be out of luck. Everything would become localized and eventually alienated beyond ones immediate kindred and environment. Few people seem to be able to see this. Everyone seems to think we can have global communication systems and advanced learning, world travel, etc. with everyone living in little independant self sufficient tribal communites. If that was the case then why have 99% of people living in that wat been forced to give way to civilization?
http://ugg-boots-in-fashion.blogspot.com http://nike-shox-online.blogspot.com http://ghd-mk4-show.blogspot.com http://cheap-poloshirts.blogspot.com http://nike-eshooes.blogspot.com http://good-nike-shox.blogspot.com
I like your blog. Thank you. They are really great . Ermunterung ++ .Some new style Puma Speed is in fashion this year. chaussure puma is Puma shoes in french . Many Franzose like seach “chaussure sport” by the internet when they need buy the Puma Shoes Or nike max shoes. The information age is really convenient .By the way ,the nike max ltd is really good NIKE air shoes ,don’t forget buy the puma mens shoes and nike air max ltd by the internet when you need them . Do you know Nike Air Shoes is a best Air Shoes . another kinds of Nike shoes is better . For example , Nike Air Rift is good and Cheap Nike Shoes .the nike shox shoes is fitting to running.Spring is coming, Do you think this season is not for Ugg Boots? maybe yes .but this season is best time that can buy the cheap ugg boots. Many sellers are selling discounted. Do not miss . Please view my fc2 blog and hair straighteners blog..thank you .I like orange converse shoes ,I like to buy the cheap converse shoes by the internet shop . the puma shoes and the adidas shoes (or addidas shoes) are more on internet shop .i can buy the cheap nike shoes and cheap puma shoes online. It’s really convenient.Many persons more like Puma basket shoes than nike air rift shoes . the Puma Cat shoes is a kind of Cheap Puma Shoes .If you want to buy the Cheap Nike Air shoes ,you can buy them online. They are same as the Nike Air shoes authorized shop. Very high-caliber Air shoes and puma cat shoes . the cheap puma shoes as same as other.polo shirts ralph lauren polo shirts chaussure puma chaussure sport chaussures pumapuma CATed hardy clothing ed hardy clothesed hardy womens ed hardy sunglasses
Post a Comment