Dark Age Politics

Energy Austerity A Return to Feudalism

{photo_credit}

It is pleasant to imagine a decentralized, post-industrial world made up of small villages inhabited by self-sufficient, low-energy, and low-consumption locavores, but this is simply a fantasy. In a perpetual crisis of resource scarcity, former First World societies would rarely reach agreement that everyone within the country’s borders would share equally in deprivation. Instead, the rich, the well armed, or an alliance of the two groups, would try to maintain their own living standards indefinitely, if necessary, by shoving the majority into Fourth World destitution, like a scene from the anarchic, feudal Westeros of George R. R. Martin’s Game of Thrones (above).

July 26, 2013 | Michael Lind

Of all the fantasies that entrance neo-Malthusians, none is more dangerous than the idea that a low-energy, low-consumption, locavore world could be organized along egalitarian lines.

Theorists of a transition to a more decentralized, less-resource-intensive system have sometimes sought to work out the details. Examples can be found at the Archdruid Report, the blog of John Michael Greer, author of The Ecotechnic Future: Envisioning a Post-Peak World and The Long Descent: A User’s Guide to the End of the Industrial Age.  A science fiction writer as well as an Archdruid, Greer has a sophisticated theory of future history in which today’s resource-intensive industrial civilization is replaced first by “scarcity industrialism” and then by an “age of salvage.”

It is my impression, though, that many if not most of those attracted to the back-to-the-land and small-is-beautiful countercultures have not sufficiently thought through the political implications of their post-industrial economic utopia. It is pleasant to imagine a decentralized, post-industrial world made up of small villages inhabited by self-sufficient peasants and the occasional blacksmith, with the odd bit of modern technology, a solar panel or a windmill or a bicycle, thrown in. Most people in the world lived in something like such an environment until a few generations ago. But they shared that environment with the rapacious landlords and warlords who enslaved or enserfed them and treated them as human livestock. In an energy-scarce world, figures like feudal aristocrats would surely reemerge in new forms, to claim tribute from the many by force and fraud.           

Why should we imagine that energy scarcity or resource scarcity would be shared equally among all of the members of a population? All societies, including the United States, are hierarchies with significant hereditary elites, some more open and assimilative, others more nepotistic and exclusive. If energy and resources really became scarce and expensive, what is more likely — that deprivation would be shared equally, peacefully and consensually among nations and classes, or that powerful elites in powerful nations would try to maintain their standards of living at the expense of most of their fellow citizens and the populations of other countries?

In a perpetual crisis of resource scarcity, you would see few if any former First World societies reach agreement that everyone within the country’s borders would share equally in deprivation. Instead, the rich, the well armed, or an alliance of the two groups, would try to maintain their own First World living standards indefinitely — if necessary, by shoving the majority into Fourth World destitution. In place of rich, industrialized nations in a sea of developing-world humanity, you would see rich, industrialized enclaves embedded within the borders of deteriorating former First World countries. The majority might struggle to survive in neo-medieval conditions, while the local oligarchs monopolized rationed electricity, rationed computers and rationed air travel for themselves.

The side-by-side existence of First World affluence and appalling poverty and powerlessness is familiar in many developing countries. In a partly de-industrialized world, it would become the norm everywhere. The best fictional portrayal of such a semi-industrial world, anticipating Greer’s “scarcity industrialism,” is found in Alexander Korda’s 1936 Things to Come, based on a novel by H.G. Wells. In the ruins of an industrial Britain devastated by war, a local warlord, the Boss, played by Ralph Richardson, terrorizes his subjects while monopolizing fuel supplies for his deteriorating airplane fleet.

If you want even more scarcity, if you prefer that elites as well as majorities be forced to adopt a pre-modern lifestyle, you’re entitled to tweak scenarios as you please. But our hard-won knowledge of human nature forbids you to imagine that a neo-agrarian economy will be organized along the lines of the pleasant village socialism imagined by William Morris in his utopian novel News from Nowhere (1890). Sorry, but you can’t have Dark Age economics without Dark Age politics, including feuds, plunder, and rape by the post-industrial equivalents of Homeric warlords or Viking chieftains.  

The ultimate dystopian nightmare would be the delusory utopia of many Greens – a world in which biomass once again became the major source of energy for heating, cooking, and industrial processes like smelting. Farms and forests once again would become the equivalent of oil and gas wells and objects of brutal competition within nations as well as among nations. Except where small societies of armed yeoman farmers could preserve their independence in mountains or on islands, brutal elites would control farmland and farmers alike.

In a neo-agrarian, photosynthesis-based economy, the modern idea of democratic national self-determination would go out the window and imperialism and colonialism would revive. In the post-industrial future, as in the pre-industrial past, it would pay to wage zero-sum wars to control rich farmland that could support large numbers of tribute-paying peasants, slaves, draft animals, and livestock. 

Peaceful, consensual back-to-nature communes, along with small, labor-intensive countercultural farms, are luxuries that can be afforded by well-policed, urban industrial societies with mechanized agriculture and manufacturing powered by cheap and abundant energy. If we return to a Malthusian economy, its political corollary is less likely to resemble the Shire in Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings than the anarchic, feudal Westeros of George R. R. Martin’s Game of Thrones.  


Photo Credit: MNE.com


Comments

  • Hobbes and his ghosts are boring.  Speaking of dangerous fantasies, the extremely pessimistic idea that humans are naturally nasty and brutish should be questioned.  I don’t think the jury is out on “hard-won knowledge of human nature”— not to mention the evidence that altruism and self-sacrifice are among our traits as well.

      Also subject to question should be this implicit binary between back-to-the-land vs high-tech, energy-scarce vs resource-intensive, local vs. globalized, etc.  First, “energy scarcity” (or having less energy available) doesn’t have to suck if one has the proper energy-efficient technologies for making use of the available energy.  If necessary, people can adapt to making a habit of charging their cell phones during the day when the sun is out, and it wouldn’t become the Dark Ages.  Farms and forests with good management don’t need to become depleted if we retain the knowledge of how to do so: we’ve learned about drip irrigation, crop rotation, pest management, etc.  I’m willing to bet humans have learned a fair bit in the past few hundred years, which can make the future different.

    These fear-based stories about going “back” are extremely dangerous.  What’s necessary are compelling visions about how to go forward.  Ironic that this is on the breakthrough site, as they often do a decent job of putting forth such visions.

    By Holly Jean Buck on 2013 08 12

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Mr. Lind,
      I enjoyed this essay.  The title is right on the mark:  energy austerity (or austerity of any kind) will reduce any and all parts of civilization to Malthusian feudal/warrior tribes.  You should also point out that along the way to such a hellish future, we would depopulate much of the planet in a manner resembling Dante’s circles of hell.    Unfortunately, the modern environmental “druids” seem to advocate such a policy - and for no good reason. 

    Malthusianism is a a myth, a fantasy that never existed.  With nuclear energy and future/potential developments in fusion, we have literally limitless energy in which to secure mankind’s existence and lift all peoples of the world out of poverty.  With nuclear energy, we can solve other energy intensive problems such as food and water.  Nuclear power could power John F. Kennedy’s vision of NAWAPA (North American Water Power Alliance).  We could literally green the deserts of North America and provide limitless water and food needed for human development.  Energy, nuclear energy, is the key.

    To think that the only thing standing in our way is an “Archdruid” calling for a return to a Hobbit like existence is positively absurd.  As a society and as a species, if we do not overcome the foolish objections of the “Archdruid” and ensure our durable survival, we will perish in a most horrifying manner possible.   

    Thanks again for a well-written essay.

    Best regards,
    Mathew Thomas

    By Mathew Thomas on 2013 08 14

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Ms. Buck’s comment misses the mark. I recommend she review the the dynamics of the pre-Industrial world to get a better understanding of how energy flows change society. As Azar Gat has pointed out, the Growth Revolution has “made peace more profitable.”

    In a world of static resources the only way to get what you wish is to take it from others. In a world of exponentially increasing resources, you can get what you wish through the market much easier than through sword.

    Yes, living standards in a new post-growth era would not be as bad as before. But the dynamics of two societies would be the same.

     

    By T. GREER on 2013 09 04

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • The “1632 Timeline” is a tech-dynamic that is neither utopian or dystopian.

    It includes “religious” warfare as a given but moves to resolution of resource and power conflicts in a credible and entertaining way. This series is a kind of “counterfactual history” that is now somewhat reputable in professional historical circles and, in any event, much more rewarding than academic enterprise when this popular and successful:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1632_series

    By John Robert BEHRMAN on 2013 10 13

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Mathew Thomas: “energy austerity (or austerity of any kind) will reduce any and all parts of civilization to Malthusian feudal/warrior tribes.”

    Wow. What a crazy idea. There’s abundant evidence that we (in the developed countries) WASTE at least half of all we consume, both energetically and in other terms. There’s huge slack in the system, and cutting it out could be accomplished with NO loss at all of essential (and even quite a few luxury) goods and services. The idea that this very wholesome discipline would reduce us all to retro tribal warfare and feudalism is… well, insane.

    Then, when I saw NAWAPA, I immediately smelled a LaRouche-ite.

    Speaking of which,  Lind should check out LaRouche; he would find a lot to like there: worship of bigness, high-tech everything, centralized everything, cognitive elite control of everything, benevolent totalitarianism. If that sounds judgmental, it is. But actually there are threads of goodness running through it, also. Some things should be centralized; cognitive elites have an important role; high-tech is indispensable in some respects; etc.

    By alan2102 on 2014 05 04

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • Mathew Thomas: “energy austerity (or austerity of any kind) will reduce any and all parts of civilization to Malthusian feudal/warrior tribes.”

      Wow. What a crazy idea. There’s abundant evidence that we (in the developed countries) WASTE at least half of all we consume, both energetically and in other terms. There’s huge slack in the system, and cutting it out could be accomplished with NO loss at all of essential (and even quite a few luxury) goods and services. The idea that this very wholesome discipline would reduce us all to retro tribal warfare and feudalism is… well, insane.

      Then, when I saw NAWAPA, I immediately smelled a LaRouche-ite.

      Speaking of which,  Lind should check out LaRouche; he would find a lot to like there: worship of bigness, high-tech everything, centralized everything, cognitive elite control of everything, benevolent totalitarianism. If that sounds judgmental, it is. But actually there are threads of goodness running through it, also. Some things should be centralized; cognitive elites have an important role; high-tech is indispensable in some respects; etc.

      To think of austerity as just getting rid of waste in a society or system is both laughably and dangerously stupid.  As Greece and other countries are now discovering, austerity actually means shutting down power plants, hospitals, schools and other life-giving services. 
      Regarding NAWAPA, allowing millions of cubic tons of fresh water to runoff into the ocean instead of using that water to irrigate farmland is, well… insane. 
      Regarding what you may be smelling, I suggest an inspection of your personal hygiene - particularly the area of your upper lip.

      Best regards,
      Mathew

       

      By Mathew Thomas on 2014 05 04

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


      • Mathew:

        “Austerity” can mean different things. The “austerity” that is being (or will soon be) urged/forced on us by the new oligarchy has, of course, NOTHING AT ALL to do with my meaning. I’m sure you knew that, but you chose to turn your answer into a red herring.

        I have nothing against the concept of NAWAPA, necessarily. It is probably a good idea, though I have not studied it enough to say. What I have a problem with is the LaRouche “movement”—a ridiculous personality cult that has consumed an enormous amount of good will, energy and time of many quite intelligent people, all for naught. LaRouche actually has some very good ideas, but he trips himself up repeatedly by making weird, utterly off-the-wall assertions, AND of course with his monumental ego (putting his freaking NAME in the title of the group!).  That’s not to mention a whole lot of other unsavory drek that I could mention and document; I’ve been watching them for a long time.

        I look forward to the moment when the old man passes (which cannot be too long now) and thereby—perhaps?—releases all those smart people to reconstitute things and take action free from the toxic burden of the impossible-to-live-down “LaRouche” (whacko) legacy. Depressingly, it might carry on as-is, with Helga or whoever heading things up.

        So: my hygiene is just fine, thanks.

        By alan2102 on 2014 05 08

        Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


        • Mathew:

          “Austerity” can mean different things. The “austerity” that is being (or will soon be) urged/forced on us by the new oligarchy has, of course, NOTHING AT ALL to do with my meaning. I’m sure you knew that, but you chose to turn your answer into a red herring.

          I have nothing against the concept of NAWAPA, necessarily. It is probably a good idea, though I have not studied it enough to say. What I have a problem with is the LaRouche “movement”—a ridiculous personality cult that has consumed an enormous amount of good will, energy and time of many quite intelligent people, all for naught. LaRouche actually has some very good ideas, but he trips himself up repeatedly by making weird, utterly off-the-wall assertions, AND of course with his monumental ego (putting his freaking NAME in the title of the group!).  That’s not to mention a whole lot of other unsavory drek that I could mention and document; I’ve been watching them for a long time.

          I look forward to the moment when the old man passes (which cannot be too long now) and thereby—perhaps?—releases all those smart people to reconstitute things and take action free from the toxic burden of the impossible-to-live-down “LaRouche” (whacko) legacy. Depressingly, it might carry on as-is, with Helga or whoever heading things up.

          So: my hygiene is just fine, thanks.

          So let me see if I understand.  You think NAWAPA is “probably a good idea”.  Glad we agree on this.  I personally think NAWAPA is key to ensuring our food supply regardless of drought in the Western states.  It’s a brilliant idea whose time has come.

          You think LaRouche has “some very good ideas” but because he has some with which you disagree as well as having the audacity to put his name on an organization (like Forbes Magazine, Bloomberg, JP Morgan, etc.) you now yearn for his death??

          Forget your physical hygiene, I think you should examine your mental and spiritual hygiene.

          Best regards,
          Mathew

           

           

          By Mathew Thomas on 2014 05 08

          Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


          • Mathew:  I love you too.

            Yes,  LaRouche has some good ideas, but as I said he trips himself up by making outrageous comments at regular intervals. All you have to do is listen/read for a while to catch this; I’m sure you have not missed it. It is not so much that I “disagree” with his ideas (although I do, to some extent); it is that he wrecks his own credibility. Not my fault.

            As for the name-in-title thing: yes, corporations often have founders’ names. Political parties or movements too, sometimes; the difference, in politics and social movements, is that the name typically comes AFTER the individual in question does something momentous, something really significant—which is as it should be. LaRouche, in his arrogance, is trying to put the cart before the horse. Let him actually accomplish something; THEN people will spontaneously call themselves “LaRouchites”, without his even trying. Like people called themselves Stalinists or Maoists or whatever, after their heroes had done something spectacular.

            Oh, and I don’t “yearn” for LaRouche’s death. I look forward to it. It is inevitable, and soon, and I look forward to the positive possibilities that it will bring.  The biggest thing wrong with the LaRouche movement is, and has been for a long time, LaRouche.
             

            By alan2102 on 2014 05 08

            Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


            • Love you too, Alan.  Sincerely. 

              Your statements continue to baffle me.  The fact that LaRouche (or any person) makes what you think are “outrageous statements” is cause for you to “look forward to his death” is both bizarre and morally degenerate. 

              Something you should consider:  great minds often make seemingly “bizarre” claims. 
              Isaac Newton was also an alchemist and practiced occult studies.  Would you have looked forward to his death? 
              Johannes Kepler, the father of astrophysics, also strongly believed in astrology.  Would you look forward to his death?   

              Joseph Priestly, the scientist who discovered oxygen, also believed in the phlogiston theory that there are only four elements: earth, water, fire and air.  Would you look forward to his death too?

              Alfred Russel Wallace, who developed the idea of natural selection long before Darwin, also believed in seances and speaking with the dead.  Would you look forward to his death too? 

              Regarding LaRouche’s ideas, he is a strong advocate of programs such as NAWAPA as well as peaceful nuclear energy development as well as bringing back Glass-Steagall to stop Wall Street.  In addition, The Schiller Institute, founded by his wife, recently produced this beautiful concert of Mozart’s Requiem commemorating the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s passing.  You can watch the concert here:
              http://www.schillerinstitute.org/concerts/2014/boston-requiem/main.html

              Truly a remarkable presentation. 

              FYI, my apologies for the ‘hygiene’ comments.

              Best regards,
              Mathew

              By Mathew Thomas on 2014 05 08

              Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • What’s wrong with JFK’s vision of greening the deserts. And what’s wrong with plentiful clean energy via advanced nuclear??? As far as I’m concerned, Laroacha (or whatever) is just a fancy name for yet another silly political religion. We can not allow all these various different factions confuse the issue against the truth (of physics) that humans can actually live in a better world which, bty, has ALL the resources necessary for us to manifest that WILL.
      Efficiency just makes it all the better!

      By Robert Bernal on 2014 08 09

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • The LaRouchites are going to troll any discussion of this sort. Please do not invite them in by attributing influence to them they do not have here or with Mike Lind.

    In fact, Michael Lind is well aware of the LaRouchites. They are not hard to detect.

    I will give them this, they masquerade as this and that (Texas Democrats, for instance) but also announce their allegiance and agenda in what seems to be an authentic Trotskyite heritage.

    They are not stealthy or useful for any sort of baiting or guilt by association, since they wade into and pile on all sorts of ideas, organizations, and people.

    Thank God, they have not embraced Lind or the Breakthrough Institute. I do not think they have a position on NAWAPA. But, they do love Thorium reactors, and so do I.

    But, I have to battle them eyeball to eyeball in the Texas Democratic Party where, in fact, they have won by exploiting a sort of cringing liberalism and egregious legalism. Again, do not bring them here as uninvited guests in a smear campaign.

    By John Robert BEHRMAN on 2014 05 04

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • The LaRouchites are going to troll any discussion of this sort. Please do not invite them in by attributing influence to them they do not have here or with Mike Lind.

      In fact, Michael Lind is well aware of the LaRouchites. They are not hard to detect.

      I will give them this, they masquerade as this and that (Texas Democrats, for instance) but also announce their allegiance and agenda in what seems to be an authentic Trotskyite heritage.

      They are not stealthy or useful for any sort of baiting or guilt by association, since they wade into and pile on all sorts of ideas, organizations, and people.

      Thank God, they have not embraced Lind or the Breakthrough Institute. I do not think they have a position on NAWAPA. But, they do love Thorium reactors, and so do I.

      But, I have to battle them eyeball to eyeball in the Texas Democratic Party where, in fact, they have won by exploiting a sort of cringing liberalism and egregious legalism. Again, do not bring them here as uninvited guests in a smear campaign.

      John,
        As far as I can tell, the LaRouche group does support both NAWAPA (an idea originally developed within the Kennedy administration) as well as thorium reactor technology.  You can read their ideas on NAWAPA and infrastructure here http://larouchepac.com/infrastructure 

      Your statement is a bit baffling.  If you do support policies such as NAWAPA (a brilliant idea) as well as thorium reactors (we’re in agreement on these points), then I’m confused as to why you wouldn’t support LaRouche policy proposals.  Let’s face it, it’s not as if Obama is going to push forward NAWAPA or thorium reactors.  Obama’s far too busy finding more countries to invade as well as extending bailouts for Wall Street.  I don’t live in Texas so I’m not familiar with your Texas Democratic Party references.

      NAWAPA is a necessity as a Western states continue to suffer from massive drought.  The loss of food production is staggering and must be addressed.  Austerity is not a humane or viable solution.

      Thanks,
      Mathew Thomas

      By Mathew Thomas on 2014 05 04

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


    • The LaRouchites are going to troll any discussion of this sort. Please do not invite them in by attributing influence to them they do not have here or with Mike Lind.

      I did not say they had an influence on Lind. I said that Lind would “find a lot to like” if he looked into them—as you say he has. Their overall orientation is consistent with Lind’s, and I’m sure they have many more points of agreement than disagreement, just like the ones I mentioned. For another example: one of Lind’s heroes is Hamilton, right? Well, LaRouche, predictably, loves Hamilton also. (I note that these guys never ever mention Jefferson. Surprise, surprise.)

      Thank God, they have not embraced Lind or the Breakthrough Institute.

      Maybe not, but they might as well do so. You would find overwhelming compatibility I’m sure. The denigration of renewables, the feverish pushing of nuclear, etc.  The Breakthrough Institute is kinda LaRouchian but without the overt personality cult and other nasty historical aspects/baggage that the real LaRouchies bring with them.

       

      By alan2102 on 2014 05 08

      Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • I agree with this.  I wrote an essay about this very idea.  I have spent considerable time reading about the middle ages.  Hopefully the crazies will not destroy our libraries the way they have in the past collapses.  If we can keep our knowledge of basic science - chemistry, biology (and associated disciplines) physics and medicine - perhaps it will not be so brutish.  Keeping our arts would also go a long way to humanizing (if that is truly possible).
    Here is my essay - http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-middle-ages.html

    By John Weber on 2014 05 19

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • I would add that for us not to repeat the same old process there are five natural factors that determine and will continue to determine our history and future.
    * All life reproduces to the maximum their environment allows(population density).
    * All life will use all the resources in its environment to promote its present living (population pressure).
    * Much of life manifest an us against them protectionism (even plants release poisons to the soil to protect their territory. This is the convergence of territoriality (which is manifest by all life) and the need to belong for this dependently social animal called human.
    * We are immersed in an environment of our own making and our “brilliance” threatens us with unintended consequences (whether agriculture or nuclear power).
    * Groups larger than the small group of 30 to 200 people, which is the social environment in which we evolved for a million years, creates power-over and inequality.
    These five factors are a natural part of life and being human.
    For more detailed exposition:
    http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/05/we-are-here.html
    http://peakoil.com/enviroment/overshoot-we-are-here/

    By John Weber on 2014 05 19

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Precisely right on!
    It seems that most people have been “doped” into believing that efficiency can cheat the laws of physics, that wind and solar does not need fossil fueled backup, and that nuclear will always be too expensive and will kill you no matter what!
    It is possible to imagine a lifestyle that consists of a higher standard (without stoplights, even) and slightly less energy, but it is impossible to imagine that 10 billion people could do well without vast amounts of additional (and clean) energy, necessary for infrastructure building and maintenance.
    The universe might not care if there are a thousand different political religions all doing their best to inform the masses regardless of obvious infighting, in apparent conformity with the WILL of the fossil fuel companies which continue to hand out the “dope”.
    Advanced modular (smaller mass produced) and meltdown proof nuclear is needed (along with whatever renewables we may relish) to keep civilization going past fossil fueled depletion into an overheated biosphere.

    By Robert Bernal on 2014 08 09

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Howard, the most effective centre inside the Basketball, nike operating,the company kayano Twenty shoes or boots,running shoes asics,One hundred and eighty color eyeshadow,mac makeup,mac pc brush,provides guided the actual group in the rebounding along with prevents each of the last two many years, making him back-to-back Defense of the year honours. He concluded last final season within the Most helpful site balloting.
    http://ugg_bailey_button_bling.stevensbk.com
    http://asics_gt-2000_runners_world_review.allislandscorals.org
    http://asics_preleus_reviews.proxysmart.info
    http://nike_air_max_outlet.epoch18vermontartisans.com
    http://nike_air_flight_huarache.stevensbk.com
    http://ugg_womens_moccasins_sale.peopleint.com
    http://asics_kayano_21_review.townofnorth.com
    http://ugg_wedge_booties.proxysmart.info
    http://asics_gt_2000_mens_review.literacy-oc.org
    http://ugg_dubai.stevensbk.com
    http://nike_free_run_2.peopleint.com
    http://cheap_asics_kayano_20_shoes.townofnorth.com
    http://latest_asics_badminton_shoes.literacy-oc.org
    http://ugg_boots_chestnut.stevensbk.com
    http://nike_air_max_pink.peopleint.com
    http://new_balance_on_line.townofnorth.com
    http://ugg_for_men.literacy-oc.org
    http://new_balance_810.epoch18vermontartisans.com
    http://nike_air_max_yeezy.peopleint.com
    http://blue_ugg_boots.townofnorth.com
    http://ugg_mens_slippers_clearance.literacy-oc.org
    http://nike_sportswear.epoch18vermontartisans.com
    http://new_nike_releases.peopleint.com
    http://ugg_bailey_button_mini.townofnorth.com
    http://new_balance_574_mens.literacy-oc.org
    http://nike_air_max_bw_classic.epoch18vermontartisans.com
    http://nike_shox_for_women.peopleint.com
    http://new_balance_womens_walking_shoes.literacy-oc.org
    http://asics_boys_big_kid.stevensbk.com
    http://ugg_rain_boots_sale.allislandscorals.org

    http://new_balance574.allislandscorals.org http://new_balance574.allislandscorals.org

    By http://new_balance574.allislandscorals.org on 2015 11 16

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Nothing is something on earth like running sneakers fortunately they are light in weight. It really is the most beneficial merchandise with regard to joggers if you have race or another competition. Ladies running shoes use a filter rearfoot as well as bigger feet since rival asics kinsei. It is the nearly all promoting running sneakers in around the world after sports shoes.
    http://joes_new_balance_outlet.peopleint.com
    http://ugg_like_boots.proxysmart.info
    http://asics_store_nyc.allislandscorals.org
    http://new_balance_blu.epoch18vermontartisans.com
    http://discount_asics_gel_kayano_20_mens.epoch18vermontartisans.com
    http://cheap_nike_shox.epoch18vermontartisans.com
    http://ugg_house_shoes.literacy-oc.org
    http://ugg_for_toddlers.allislandscorals.org
    http://new_balance_890.townofnorth.com
    http://chocolate_ugg_boots.townofnorth.com
    http://asics_nimbus_16_for_sale.proxysmart.info
    http://ugg_adirondack_ii_boot.literacy-oc.org
    http://cheap_ugg_noira.stevensbk.com
    http://new_balance_donna.peopleint.com
    http://nike_ruckus_mid.allislandscorals.org
    http://cheap_asics_gel_nimbus_14.townofnorth.com
    http://zapatillas_nike_air_max.proxysmart.info
    http://best_asics_running_shoes_men_2015.epoch18vermontartisans.com
    http://green_ugg_boots.stevensbk.com
    http://asics_gel_kayano_16_cheap.allislandscorals.org
    http://asics_noosa_fast.townofnorth.com
    http://ugg_outlet_prices.literacy-oc.org
    http://nike_shoes_on_sale.stevensbk.com
    http://asics_gel_kayano_19_reviews.peopleint.com
    http://womens_asics_gt_2000_2_review.allislandscorals.org
    http://new_balance_online_store.allislandscorals.org
    http://410_new_balance.townofnorth.com
    http://asics_gel_pursuit_review.proxysmart.info
    http://nike_sneaker.proxysmart.info
    http://new_balance_minimus_20v3.literacy-oc.org

    http://asics_quick_lyte_single_tab_socks.literacy-oc.org http://asics_quick_lyte_single_tab_socks.literacy-oc.org

    By http://asics_quick_lyte_single_tab_socks.literacy- on 2015 11 16

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • Very useful post. aquí This is my first time i visit here. I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion.
    click aquí
    Really its great article. Keep it up!

    By Aurora Fernandez on 2017 08 01

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply


  • By Jonh on 2017 10 28

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

Submit a comment