The Government did not fail to detect the 9/11 attacks because it was unable to collect information relating to the plot. It did collect exactly that, but because it surveilled so much information, it was incapable of recognizing what it possessed ("connecting the dots"). Despite that, we have since then continuously expanded the Government's surveillance powers. Virtually every time the political class reveals some Scary New Event, it demands and obtains greater spying authorities (and, of course, more and more money). And each time that happens, its ability to detect actually relevant threats diminishes.While I am plainly sympathetic to Greenwald's gripes about the surveillance state in Soviet America, I think he comes at it wrong. Sure, America is a death-dealing monster, but it's a slightly ridiculous one, a rubber-suited Godzilla, a Cyclops rather than a Circe. I don't mean to diminish the horrors America inflicts around the globe or the iniquities it commits within its own borders, and I surely wouldn't want to get caught up in some NSA dragnet--hell, I get the sweats going through airport security. But you have to admit that as dystopias go, ours tends toward the absurd . . . an overpriced, gel-sole cross-trainer stepping on a human's open-toed strappy sandal . . . forever.
-Glenn Greenwald
The government intercepts almost 2 billion telephone calls and texts every day! What can it do with them? I can't even follow My Boyfriend Johnny Weir's semi-daily Twitterz without getting confused. Is this . . . what day is this? And again, I'm not saying this to diminish the general awfulness of squishy totalitarianism, but perhaps it is an awfulness more akin to a bad oyster than a bullet to the back of the head? I don't know. Look, murderous singlemindedness is so twentieth century, and I frankly see a future when it no longer matters that there is no social security, or whatever, because every single American will be a lifetime employee of the Hornito's Presents The Defense Department.
62 comments:
Wait a minute, this is the future. Where are all the phaser guns?
As long as I can get me some Brawndo. You know, cause it has electrolytes.
The fact of the matter is not catching the occasional threat is a feature, not a bug. Absent 9-11, the political momentum even among Neocons wouldn't have been enough to get us stuck in our Mess-o'Potamean Adventure or our own Afghan Imperial Graveyard... so, not detecting the threat was just win-win all around!
And IOZ's point about our inept totalitarianism is well-taken; even allegedly minor league tin-pot dictatorships like Syria have the good sense to employ something like a quarter of the population in the Mukhbarat spying on the other three quarters-- any decent potentate will tell you that a decent security arrangement is a jobs program first, and a "national security thing" a distant second. By insisting we can do totalitarianism "on the cheap"... well, let's just say that we just don't do it with the same elan as proper autocracies.
That said, I still give props to Glennzilla for even still caring about this. Lord knows, no one else seems to.
I'm more impressed by Greenwald growing a pair of eyeballs and an actual power of acute observation and analysis.
I still remember when it was all about more, better Democrats and killing them Ay-rab Terrrrissss in Glenn's view.
so much for the noosphere.
"...they hate us for our freedoms."
hahaha, what freedoms?
per WAPO some 854,000 have top-secret clearances. my sources estimate 5 million with secret clearances. That is, more people than inhabit several scandinavia countries have been entrusted with information supposedly so important that it can be legally withheld from the "democracy" creating such information. And this increasing number of people are permanently exposed and bound to the state in a manner they never were before.
security clearance as squishy totalitarianism bitches. put that in yer pipe and smoke it.
it's squishy now. could it stiffen up, when the shit really hits the fan?
yeah, I root for cognitive dissonance. render it all meaningless and absurd, and let me get back to whatever it was I was doing when you distracted me. go on, shoo
Yeah sure. I mean, if he wants to continue to follow the absurd 'inability to connect the dots' premise; a meme somebody shat out there for him to blag about. Until we accept that we set up the whole thing, there ain't no real point in discussing it.
Then again, valid is IOZ's Disproportional Retardedness Proposition. So the scary thing is, they actually thought they needed to pretend like they didn't know what the Yeehahists were doing in those flight schools, had no idea where the money was coming from, put air defense to sleep, and why? So they would have an excuse to do something they probably could have gone to much less trouble to do.
Even Taco Bell was yummy when I was a teenager. And cheap as hell.
Sartwell has this wrong, and so do you, dude.
We have market, not squishy, totalitarianism. The core fact is not the merger of the state and "the economy," as Sartwell would have it. It is the absolute power of "the economy," which owns the state, lock, stock, and barrel. It is the unchecked dictatorship of corporate capital.
This means that much of the totalitarianism is competitively, rather than Politburically, imposed.
It also means that the violent facets must be somewhat deniable and salable, lest they arouse too much attention and thus blow the cover story of democracy and the best-of-all-possibles.
But "squishy" is a very misleading word for the overall reality. Overall, we are in a totalitarianism that displays a cohesion and success that would make Josef Stalin purple with envy.
I know you anarchists flirt with denying that precise thinking matters, but it might.
This might be one of those spots where the Marxist take is clearly superior to the left-anarcho-nihilist one, as Sartwell himself acknowledges as a major possibility.
I still remember when it was all about more, better Democrats and killing them Ay-rab Terrrrissss in Glenn's view
Ignoring the Democrat part for now, what the hell are you talking about? Greenwald consistently said that the word 'terrorist' has no meaning and is the most manipulated word in the English language. I have never seen the blood-lust for killing "Ay-rab Terrrrissss" you attribute to him. Perhaps a link would be helpful?
Dawson, your ability to combine a jape about "precise thinking" with the prominent use of the phrase "overall reality" is the reason we value your presence around here. Nec plus ultra, my friends.
Teddie,
I started reading Greenwald at "Unclaimed Territory" where I engaged him in discussion about the aims of our mid-east policy(ies) and he steadily defended the need to to go get the "Islamic Fundamentalist" terrorists who --at that time-- Greenwald was saying were responsible for 9/11/2001's events in the USA.
At the time, Greenwald was mining the theme that the GOP were "incompetent" at ferreting out these horrible Islamic Terrorists, and was urging his readers to support the election of more Democrats to swing the power reins into Donkey hands who would --presumably-- prosecute the foreign policy against Islamic Terrorists more "competently" (or the like).
Since he destroyed the Unclaimed Territory blog there's no link.
Since you aren't that familiar with Greenwald's history of ideological and rhetorical positions, I think it's funny you'd try to "call me out" on this. Apparently you aren't even aware of what he's argued in the past. That's funny. And sad.
This might be one of those spots where the Marxist take is clearly superior to the left-anarcho-nihilist one,....
By "Marxist" what do you mean here, Dawson?
Surely not Karl, as Karl isn't alive today and he didn't opine on the present situation. The house-of-cards "service economy" we have presently wasn't presaged by Glossy Karl. In fact, all Glossy Karl did was write confusing complex theories that attracted the attention of those who were disaffected, and that's pretty much whom he attracts today.
Marxism = fail.
We don't need Glossy Karl to see reality.
GG gets one thing right, the surveillance state is off the table and out the door.
It's probably time to bring someone back from the freeze chamber for a few Murder. Death. Kills.
What's that? This is our utopia? Oh, okay. never mind.
Again, what the hell are you talking about?
Here is the "destroyed" blog: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
You will find the archives complete and intact. Now, a link?
Well, I made it through the "fight for peace", so "market totalitarianism" is just another socialist oxymoron to be survived.
Here's a clue, MD, if it's totalitarian, it's no market.
Corporate totalitarianism - now that I experience daily.
Capt'n Obvious
The comments I'm talking about were destroyed, Teddie.
Nice of you to try to rehab Glenn, though. Very nice. I'll wager he appreciates it greatly. Every porn star needs a fluffer.
PS to Teddie: They were probably destroyed when Glenn also destroyed my posts which took him to task for not knowing who the PNAC were, threads in which he denied the PNAC's existence and told me I was lying about its "Rebuilding America's Defenses" white paper.
You may think Glenn pure and noble, but he's an insecure putz like many attention-seeking glory-hounds. He doesn't like being wrong, and he can't abide being publicly shown to be talking out of his bunghole.
But hey, he's gay and --from what I hear from his gay fans-- kinda cute, so maybe he's got that going for him.
You accuse Greenwald of wanting to slaughter Arabs and I asked for a link. You call me a fluffer, can't provide a link, and point out that he is gay.
Thanks, that clears everything up.
Oxtrot, if you can locate your pwnage of Greenwald via the Internet archive, I'm sure we'd all be quite impressed.
Assuming that the links exist, I am not sure what that proves. That GG used to think one way and has since changed his mind? Everyone emerges from the womb clueless and clue-up at their own pace. Not sure why abandoning unsupportable opinions is a black mark against someone.
Greenwald always seem to attract barbs from Internet commenters at the merest mention. I gather he's got an attitude that some deem arrogant and shrill, but for as long as I've read him (two years or so), I've only seen lose his cool in the face outrageous abuse and/or unblinking stupidity. I don't deny that he may have played up some of his posts for pathos, but as far as I can see, he's one of the few mainstream blogger even talking about the Military Industrial Complex in any consistent manner. In fact, I think he's the best in the progosphere (which admittedly isn't saying much).
Military Industrial Complex*
*should have been Military Industrial/Entertainment/Information/Service/Banking/Fast Food Complex.
Oxy, I don't care about Marx or Marxism. What I was suggesting was that there's a choice in how to interpret what's happening. One is to say we have a co-equal blending of an independent state and "the economy" into something "squishy." The second is to say the corporate elite dominates both "the economy" and the state, and does as a way to maximize its private returns of investment. Drop the labels if you'd like. The choice remains, and it matters, unless this (reality) is all a language game.
It also remains fun to watch you who has no need of Marx or Chomsky talk about nothing but how dumb I am whenever you see my name, at the obvious expense of making yourself look like a stone-cold lunkhead.
IOZ, the precise thinking thing wasn't a jape. You come damned close to arguing that such a thing is impossible, even though its practice by you is clearly the whole appeal of this excellent blog. If you think "overall reality" is a useless concept, that choosing where to start and end one's abstractions is a pointless joke, then that's either a case-in-point, or I'm a deluded and sloppy self-negation, a joke on myself.
Free to choose...
@Michael Dawson: humor a poor liberal arts B.A.. The distinction between "the corporate masterminds running our State" and "the State masterminds running our corporations" matters to me, the man on the street who's got to make his paper, why? I want to engage your argument on its merits, but I need to understand why this distinction matters first.
To quote a non-Coen Brothers movie, when you've got a gun pointed at your face, what's the difference?
Anon of 2:19.
Why can't a capitalist (market) society be totalitarian? Because that's what you've been taught? Because the thought hasn't occurred to you before?
Totalitarianism is the effort by a ruling elite to control the details of all aspects of modern social life: government, economy, and personal life.
There is nothing that belongs in the definition that says the elite in question has to reside within the state.
Does capitalists fit this definition within the United States? Certainly, yes. They utterly dominate the economy. Through lobbying, graft, and commercial television, they control the state at all levels. Marketing is by far the largest "cultural" endeavor in the society, and by far the most impactful one.
Market totalitarianism.
Coldie, for one thing, it has to do with the facts. It is an empirical question whether corporate interests ate the state or state bureaucrats ate the private economy. It is an empirical question whether the USA has ever had a state that wasn't a committee of business interests.
The main reason this matters is selection of proper enemies and reforms.
If the state on its own is the problem, or half the problem, then one complains about the existence of government and explains government actions largely as actions designed to perpetuate state power and prestige.
If capitalists are the problem, then one explains foreign policies and wars as being designed to promote money-making by major investor interests, and one endeavors to win back state power from the capitalists.
Again, this involves empirical evidence. What view better explains what has happened,is happening, and is likely to happen next?
It also involves the risks one suggest opponents of present realities ought to take. Over-emphasis on state power as state-power-for-itself risks shooting off one's nose to spite one's face, never addressing the real center of trouble. Overemphasizing capitalism risks beating the capitalists only to discover that that leaves us the USSR instead.
IOZ and Sartwell see a merger between two equal forces. I see a take-over of government by the same-old force, which is private enterprise.
The former position, when held by lefties like IOZ and Sartwell, leads to "it all sucks and I'm against it all" and a campaign, if that word means anything, for less government and less capitalism. How to get that? Good question.
The latter leads to a push for more democracy and the strategic expansion of public authority over economic decisions.
Chomsky, by the way, is an anarchist who argues that the first stage of anarchist struggle must be for option two above.
leads to "it all sucks and I'm against it all"
Sounds more like Groucho Marxism. Ba-dum bum.
It is an empirical question whether the USA has ever had a state that wasn't a committee of business interests.
It is an empirical question whether any State has ever had a State that wasn't a committee of business interests. Jewish families petition their dispute arbiters to elect a king and anoint him with oil. Scottish landowners get behind Robert the Bruce so they, rather than England, can tax their subjects. A bunch of wealthy colonists meet up in Philadelphia and start cribbing John Locke. Follow the money, ma-a-an.
I see a take-over of government by the same-old force, which is private enterprise.
Weren't you just saying that it was up for debate "whether the USA has ever had a state that wasn't a committee of business interests"? If so, when was the "take-over"? When was the Pure State and True, before the bastards got to it?
Oxtrot is such a slayer of dragons that all slain dragons tremble in his wake and destroy their archives so no one will ever see how brilliant Oxy was.
"You may think Glenn pure and noble, but he's an insecure putz like many attention-seeking glory-hounds."
Need I point it out???????
Foxtrot:
"In fact, all Glossy Karl did was write confusing complex theories that attracted the attention of those who were disaffected, and that's pretty much whom he attracts today.
Marxism = fail. "
shorter Foxtrot: "Marx is too complicated for my pea-brain. Screw it."
The latter leads to a push for more democracy and the strategic expansion of public authority over economic decisions.
More socialism! Hair of the dog, Dude.
And yes, I understand that within your worldview "authority over X" is entirely different than "ownership of X". I'll grant they are different things, but one is a subset of the other, so they are not entirely distinct. And seeing as we tax corporate profits, it's hard to see much distinction.
As for democracy, it is the problem. To the extent that a society functions, it is in spite of democracy, not because of it. Whenever someone mentions "democracy", it's best to hear it as "committees". When committees fail, what's the solution? More committees. More inclusive committees! Extending the purview of committees to all decisions! Let's give a giant committee of stupid, surly know-nothings authority over all economic decisions. Yah, that'll work!
Har har, I see Oxtrot is busy making new friends with his usual oblivious fucktardery. The boy never learns.
'Squishy' totalitarianism? There is something almost America-loving in this concept. I guess it's squishy if by squishy you mean very few Americans feel its full force. It seems to me the best and most lasting kind of tyranny is imposed very selectively and, at the moment, the population is kept docile by other means. For those who aren't docile, it doesn't look very squishy at all. I think the original Orwell quote you took off from applies well enough. Ask Jose Padilla if it looks like 'an overpriced, gel-sole cross-trainer stepping on a human's open-toed strappy sandal . . . forever'. And we're just talking about its latest War on Terror incarnation here.
If Greenwald errs, it's in thinking that the purpose of all this data mining is connecting dots with specific application to fighting Islamic Fundamentalist Terror. And I also question the idea that data can be so voluminous that connecting dots about activity the state does wish to control is not possible. That doesn't square with my understanding of the current state of technology, which, I admit, is limited, though I am a software developer. The best case scenario is that they are collecting too much data to be practical, but I really doubt that's the case.
You're probably right that nothing beyond current levels of squishy will be required if, in fact, 'every single American will be a lifetime employee of . . .The Defense Department' but, of course, that's not going to happen, not by a long shot. We are dealing with a kleptocracy so parasitic it resists even modest placatory measures like extending already meagre unemployment benefits. Even
Americans won't stay docile forever and we'll see how squishy the security apparatus stays if they do anything that stinks of genuine, meaningful resistance.
I think Mike hit the nail on the head.
I would add that all colonial governments are "squishy" and "slightly ridiculous" death dealing monsters. For an excellent example, I recommend Orwell's Burmese Days, based on his own experience as a colonial police officer.
And a thought on data: I am somehow able to sort through the billions of web pages out there to find the ones of interest.
It seems possible to me that with the hundreds of billions (trillions?) of dollars spent on "intelligence" the most powerful government in the world might be able to do the same with their (our?) data.
And yet Orwell managed to draw a distinction between the Brits and the Nazis, the latter of whom, he assured us, would've shot that pesky Ghandi right in the red dot. I don't mean to lean to heavily on the, literally Joe Biden, years of insistence by this Internet Web Blog that the United States has killed millions of people, nor yet to point out that there is even an occasionally used post tag, "Violating Godwin's Stupid Law" . . . but, actually, yes, I do. I am willing to put my hysterical anti-American bona fides against any of younz anyday. The only difference may be that I understand the inevitability of defeat.
And yet Orwell managed to draw a distinction between the Brits and the Nazis
That's a poor example if we are thinking of the same passage because the one I mean is full of misplaced regard for his countrymen. However, i won't dispute your America-hating bona fides.
The only difference may be that I understand the inevitability of defeat.
Actually I think the sense of defeat is likely to be keener in folks who see American totalitarianism as markedly more unpleasant and less lovably inept than your post suggests.
I like Mike. He was able to describe with accuracy, and without citing obscure sources or using flowery anachronistic verbiage. He would be my choice for King of Anarchism.
Tattoo it on your forehead.
... the bona fides that is. Since it means so much to you why not preserve it for posterity in ink.
And yet Orwell managed to draw a distinction between the Brits and the Nazis
What do the Nazis have to do with this? Michael's point was prefaced with "the [...] most lasting kind of tyranny" and your counter-example lasted for exactly one regime.
And if the British empire (and presumably, the Roman empire, with their roads and aqua-ducts) was also "squishy" then what is the point of the post? Either this is something new and different -- a departure from, as you put it, "murderous singlemindedness" -- or it is not. I think not.
I did not mean to accuse you of being an apologist for America's crimes; I just disagree with your thesis, assuming I understand it. And don't worry I have no doubt you hate America more than me.
The only difference may be that I understand the inevitability of defeat.
Again, Michael hit the nail on the head. The only point I would add is that since I have accepted the inevitability of defeat I have become a lot more sympathetic to those trying to make this system a little less brutal and a little more squishy.
A cranky Englishman phrased things this way "By the time you have finished reading them, you are unsure as to whether Gogol, Kafka, or Orwell offers the best insight into contemporary British reality. Gogol captures the absurdity all right, and Kafka the anxiety caused by an awareness of sinister but unidentifiable forces behind what is happening; but you also need Orwell to appreciate, and sometimes even to admire, the brazenness with which officialdom twists language to mean the opposite of what it would once ordinarily have meant."
Personally, rather than read Gogol I listened to Michael Palin's radio performance and rather than read Kafka I watched Anthony Perkins & Orson Welles tv-movie.
Oh, and speaking of Orwell, some libertarians complain about his politics here, while Asimov complains about his depiction of technology here.
Full body nude scans are coming to a NY airport near you. You can opt out and receive alternative terrorist prevention pat-downs (at first), but like all creeping squishiness, will become ubiquitous and mandated. I bet the North Koreans don't have to deal with full body scans when they fly...and neither did the Nazis!
Look how easy it was for Indiana Jones and his dad to get on that Zeppelin?
I think Mike assigns much too much intent and purposeful direction to the Squish.
more on the Squish here. this one, too. oh, also.
final one.
Michael Dawson,
There’s definitely a co-dependency going on between the state and the large business interests—the corporations supply the cash, and the state supplies the guns. The problem with trying to “win back state power from the capitalists” is that the capitalists are always going to have the upper hand. The people most likely to benefit from a truly public-spirited government, if such a thing is even possible, are also most likely to realize that their ability to influence it pales in comparison to ADM and Conoco-Phillips.
Also, I don’t see how you can have totalitarianism, of any kind, without the state playing a major role, if not the dominant role. Remove the latter, and all those giant corporations, which depend on the state for their free ride, are reduced to just a bunch of vendors.
Ted Stein,
Burmese Days is a great book, not only as a depiction of British colonialism but also in terms of pure storytelling.
Re: your sympathy for people trying to make the system less brutal and more squishy, I’d say that the problem with the squishy stuff is that it’s always used to justify or divert attention from the not-so-squishy stuff.
the corporations supply the cash, and the state supplies the guns.
the guns aren't the issue here. the powerful have the power. the state "legitimizes" the use of power. the state is a fake, wholly owned subsidiary.
as long as financial power remains supreme, and most of us still depend on paychecks for survival, what is to stop the powerful from, well, doing their thing?
i don't know from empirical evidence, but i suppose i put stock in MD's second scenario.
In the interests of precision, by definition economic interests controlling the state is fascism while the state controlling economic interests is communism. Both have entirely different paths to existence and both result in slightly different modes of social and economic organization, but they do at least share one thing in common - both ultimately benefit only the elite.
Now, of course, neither has anything to do with Marx, who eschewed both [along with any form of totalitarianism]. Marx was a technocratic utopian anarchist who depended upon dialectic historical reasoning to predict that capitalism would be the trampoline to a stateless utopia in which no scarcity exists. The inherent conflict between the promise of freedom and universality with the consciousness of contract labor and the reality of exploitation therein not only sets up consciousness to seize the universality of species-being, but fuels the logarithmic agglomeration of value [i.e. technology] which enables the end of the paradigm of production [i.e. the end of economy/history].
I forgive Marx his predictive impotence, as no one has remotely stumbled upon a rubric to accurately predict the future shape of the world [though my money is on '70's dystopian sci-fi]... again, all said just for the sake of precision.
@MD 4:47
So it's the exchange that's wrong, not the gun pointed to face. Given that without exchange human life is brutal and short, that's an "interesting" point of view. Right there with Marx's view on the abolition of private ownership.
I'd mean I'd call it the Stupid Statement of the Day, but then many took BigBeardo seriously, and that did not work out so good for my clan.
Abolition of freedom through lexical action. Wow. Just wow.
Capt'n Obvious
Sir Obvious, please go back and read Marx, as you obviously haven't.
By the way, Michael Dawson, are you the same person whose blurb appears on the back of Venkathesh's "Off the Books"?
Attention ... Attention ....
To all the idiots who keep playing "YOU DON'T BUHLIEVE ME, RED KAEL MARX!!!"
Karl Marx was an effete, rich playboy's playboy who swilled cognac and vodka and finger banged hookers till 4 in the morning. All that "share the wealth" stuff was meant for retards like you, not him. All the mountains of bodies left in the wake of the political realization of Communism are all one needs to understand that Marx and his ilk were 120% fucking unequivocally wrong.
Now we can debate that the totalitarianism we experience today is squishy-soft or hard as a porn-star's cock. But what should be clear to everyone even the CEO's of this or any other country is the Golden Gun Rule. He who has the guns makes the rules. Yes, Big Business can and does influence heavily those that do have the guns. But when they run out of their usefulness, or becomes a big enough embarrassment (i.e. Madoff) the CEO will get a bullet to his head as quickly as you or I will.
Thank you that is all.
Good lord! I left the literature department long ago because no one could really say what they said. Because no one gave a damn about what concepts meant. They simply swilled commodification with 'the mirror stage' thinking they'd made the perfect margarita.
And yet I'm faced daily with idiots who think they know what 'THE MARX' said, because they read 'Communist Manifesto' when they were in high school, with no referents. No understanding of Marx within the Hegelian tradition, no understanding of Aristotle, and no understanding of Kant... Well, fuck me! I actually do care. Just like I care that you understand Plato and Heidegger, and Leibniz, and William of Occam.
Please, motherfuckers, don't pretend you understand people in the history of philosophy unless you actually understand them.
Why did I respond to Sir O like I did? Because Marx is a dialectician. There is no 'prescription' or 'proscription' in his writings. There is 'necessity' - things happen because they do. Anyone who interprets anything within Marx as prescription or proscription has never read or comprehended Marx.
And it offends me when people pretend otherwise.
Seriously, I don't deify the diarrhea that comes from my ass.
I'd feel a lot better about the world if people actually understood the history of philosophy, because it is the ground of science, sociology, politics, art, mathematics, music, etc.. etc... Things that Plato wrote are responsible for the fascism of today, while things Protagoras wrote are responsible for the anarchic humanism I aspire to.
We're fighting the same fight 2500 years later.
Gentlemen,
It's the gun. Without the gun BigBeardo's followers and whoever is that MD apes would be at most an atheist version of Jehova's Witnesses.
Capt'n Obvious
Oxtrot, given that you are currently on display at The Distant Ocean making an utter laughingstock of yourself with your amazing inability to read a very recent essay by Alexander Cockburn and accurately describe what it says without adding a heaping helping of fantasy and imagination (not to mention your bizarre charge that Caruso and his commenters are "progressives"), forgive me if I don't find your assertions about what Greenwald said or didn't say several years ago very convincing, especially since there is no evidence being offered.
You are a fucking retarded clown, and I hope you never achieve self-awareness, as the shame would immediately crush you as quickly if you had teleported to the ocean floor.
yeah, I root for cognitive dissonance. render it all meaningless and absurd, and let me get back to whatever it was I was doing when you distracted me. go on, shoo
Cheap GW2 gold|gw2 gold
Post a Comment