Basically Stan, you want people of other cultures to have a “total entitlement to human culture, a stance which necessitates the most extreme eclecticism” and yet they are not entitled to have or explore, exclusively, profoundly, their own traditions, because we must all exist, after all, in the pure eclecticism of the now? And I see that the idea of tradition doesn’t make up a part of your all-loving, all-inclusive “eclecticism”. With your outstretched hand then you profess the desire to be truly eclectic, yet with the back of your hand you then announce that different peoples’ traditions won’t make up a part of your eclecticism. Your “eclecticism” includes everything, except that part of people and peoples which is rooted in the past. Your “eclecticism” does not include the wound of colonialism, or the travels of a people in search of a new homeland, or an entire culture killed, with their language, in the mountains north of Ukraine. No, your eclecticism is always looking forward!
This “eclecticism” you pretend to is a sham; your philosophy of inclusion is a philosophy of exclusion: apparently different traditions, including your own, don’t qualify for the peaceful, eclectic, multifarious garden and palace the avant is building. Which is not surprising, however, because you don’t want to “preserve” anything, do you Stan? Not other cultures, nor languages, nothing. In fact, you think that nothing is worth preservation, that “preservation” is itself a dirty word. Heaven forbid that other cultures - and crucially, the avant-garde artists of these cultures - may feel that the only way to preserve their culture is via a profound maintenance, perhaps via poetry, of their own traditions, their own language, their own histories. But this preservation on their part only creates ethnic segmentation and violence, doesn’t it? It’s hardly very “cosmopolitan”.
I am excited to see then that the avant-garde is just another word for socio-political globalization. How wonderful it will be, indeed, when we have all “liberated our imaginations” and thus become true “cosmopolitan and/or global citizens.” No more pesky traditions, no more local cultures, just one big “non-conflictual” world avant-garde! In fact, the more cultures and traditions and languages we lose now, the better: the less preservation, the less conflict there will be, right? And we all hate conflict, don’t we?
And thus, the more of those poetics deeply reliant on specific traditions which we destroy, and the less “historical” and “traditional” our writing is in turn, the more we move towards the all-inclusive, all-eclectic poetic! Just like how the more Kalahari tribes which become integrated into the larger cosmopolitan culture of Cairo, the less reliant everyone is on all those ridiculous, specific histories! All those traditions which those tribes and their “conservative” poets stupidly cling to! What quietists! Thank god we have the avant-garde to help us overcome our debt to tradition, to help us universalize into the cosmopolitan, eclectic now!
“The goal is not to disappear the local but to universalize all the locals at once.” Some locals don’t want to be universalized. Some locals believe that some of their specific value lies in their being local. I did not know you were Voltaire.
Following your reasoning Stan, and Mark, I can only hope that all traditions are forgotten tomorrow, along with all languages, and all the people who maintain them. Let’s start afresh, indeed. Why should avant-garde Filipino poets need their own traditions to define their identities! What is Celan so caught up about? Be in the now, people. Move on!
I don’t consider myself a part of the rear-garde. But if this is your vision of the avant-garde, you can count me out.
24 comments:
Nicholas,
I posted an entry at my blog that shares many of your concerns. Part of me sees the sort of avant-garde stance that both and I read in Stan's (and I suppose Mark's) pronouncements as being nearly moving, as it seems to be a wishful thinking about not being implicated in the current socio-economic moment. Almost a sort of, "let's have a no-tradition standpoint so we can erase our identities as Americans." That is, of being in the eclectic 'now' as a way of erasing ties to the larger culture; the problem being, of course, that the logic of contemporary capital is precisely that it dilates via the the mediation of the eclectic now. So a false decision is posited between the eclectic-now and the past-as-relic, when those aren't the only available moves. I guess I'm thinking of Deleuze's notion of the possible (as opposed to the virtual) as being a good description of this particular framing of the avant-garde, as it agrees to a move that is possible by the current, hegemonic available terms (the move of a defining, I suppose absolute refusal of tradition) without allowing for a sense of becoming through terms (or relations between terms) that aren't already presented as possible.
Anyway, I probably sketch out my thoughts a little clearer over at my blog.
Best,
Tony
Nicholas, it's interesting that you see yourself as accused relative to my finding it boring to try reconciling the notion of tradition and the notion of the avant garde.
I do still think the idea is boring, which is how I feel about most attempts at artistic reconciliation or compromise, and I'm not sure I understand how the idea of "history" and "tradition" are so conflated for you. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. My own take is that the concept of "tradition" is only one way of understanding history, and usually a dangerously limited one.
In any case I wasn't expressing hostility in my comment towards your attitudes per se, especially when I'm not sure yet what those are and I don't actually know you.
But hey, emotions do indeed happen. I get that. I've got 'em too.
Nicholas, do you know what professor roky erickson says on this matter?
: "If you have ghosts, then you have everything."
a
Mark, it's not your fault I was disturbed by all this, nor Stan's really. I respect you both, of course. I just think the vision you are presenting may be implying some things you'd never want it to imply, and this worries me very deeply.
Firstly, I think this history/tradition binary, which is introduced to save the "eclectic now's" political cred, is also a sham. I recognize that they are very distinct concepts, but nowhere has Stan or you talked about the importance of history, specifically, and then compared this importance of history with the importance of tradition.
On the contrary, I specifically asked Stan if the problem was with the past per se or with a particular type of past. And the response was clear. So, shifting the accent from tradition to history won't help.
But more importantly still, if you want us to talk about history instead of tradition, are you implying that we should only allow avant-garde Filipino poets, for instance, to talk about their "history" through poetry, without creating or using or ever drawing upon their own poetic "traditions"? What if an avant-garde African-American poet wants, or feels the need, to invent his or her own specific canon? You must see how this tradition could be necessary for a poet, even though it is different from that poet's “history”. Surely Amiri Baraka could include Aimé Césaire in his poetic tradition, without this tradition being necessarily linked to Baraka’s specific “history” as a black American (Civil Rights etc.)
What humans have done (traditions) is a part of what they have lived (histories). History is shaped by traditions, and traditions occur in history. If you rob a culture of their traditions, you will also, sooner or later, rob them of their histories.
I feel, basically, that the wealth of human spirituality and suffering latent in the past is in part the secret to us understanding ourselves. Look at all the régimes who have created a year zero: the creation of a year zero has truly horrible artistic and political precedents, which I don’t need to enumerate. I think Tony’s contribution is crucial here, and I agree with his suspicion of this vision of the avant-garde implying in part “wishful thinking about not being implicated in the current socio-economic moment”. But one is always implicated, and implicated in past human lives which have come before, and in past aesthetic productions. You are implicated today. The implication is so total that we are no longer even aware of it. As Tony says, “the logic of contemporary capital is precisely that it dilates via the mediation of the eclectic now.”
Because of this lack of awareness of implication, “a false decision is posited between the eclectic-now and the past-as-relic, when those aren't the only available moves.” I could not express it better.
Let’s not deny then the depth (diachronic) and breadth (synchronic) of our implication. You can’t deny that you’re implicit in both the current and the historical decisions of world politics, any more than you can deny your implication in current and historical forms of art.
Our ideas of justice, for instance, come largely from Periclean democratic ideals which won out over Socratic dialectic. Nobody, today, is a follower of Socratic justice (ie. as Socrates says in the Gorgias, “one should never attempt to defend oneself”). We "defend ourselves": these ideas have become part of us. Nor could Stan have written his definition of what the avant-garde is today without one part Situationist International, two parts Dada and just a splash of Baader-Meinhof.
The past moulds you. You are, in part, the past. But you are also the future. You are, at any moment, both dead and alive.
maybe manning's a closet quietist. that would explain a lot! but what, nm, you think published in fascicle/blazevox give you card-carrying membership to the hip side of the avant? no.
Well, I'd say that in comparing Joyce and Ball, and in defining some possibilities for a contemporary avant garde practice (both at all and in relation to past uses of the term), Stan is clearly lodging his ideas in relation to history. So the idea that Stan is not mentioning history can't really be what's bothering you. It must be something regarding what he's saying about the nature of history that's bothering you.
As to the idea that Stan or I thinks we're outside the sociopolitical moment in some pure way, come on now. I think Stan has been asserting more the concept of presence, an existence in the moment which is never simply a function of the past. It's very similar to the position Williams takes in Spring And All, another past text that Stan has mentioned. The idea of a radical present, of being alive in the moment rather than being overwhelmed by the past, can be found in writers like Stein, Creeley, Debord and many others. So if anything, I'm not sure the idea is really that new or startling.
Stan's point, consistently, has been the importance of continuing to imagine possibilities for breaking from the past as opposed to being on some kind of continuum with it. And I agree: I'm not part of the "continuum of history," because the idea that there is such a continuum is a fiction. This is one of the points, for instance, that Foucault makes so importantly in The Archeology of Knowledge.
Eliot's idea of tradition was that it was such a continuum; that every new work of (successful canonical) literature altered the field of the whole only by becoming part of it. I think the idea of such a whole is a conservative, consolidating illusion. No such whole exists, and because it doesn't, possibilities for radical presence continue to exist.
Mark, I quote Stan from October 25th:
"Ball’s work is universally accessible precisely because of its unique inspiration that separates it entirely from fantasies of the necessity of genealogy, etymology, history."
Ball is valuable for Stan because he does away with the very "fantasies of history" which you are now attributing to Stan. Stan does not advocate a complex historical sense just because he "compares Joyce and Ball". Simply talking about writers in the past doesn't mean one recognizes the value(s) and uses of history.
Again, I quote Stan from October 23:
"In practice, the cosmopolitan writer samples/idolizes elements from "other" tradition in order to get away from his/her "own" tradition."
Does not this seems, to some extent, to be an attempt to get away from the American socio-political moment, and the historical antecedents of same?
Next, it's all very well Mark to be "radically present", unless of course your culture is destined to live always, somewhat, in the past, because of what happened to it in that past. Some things need to be worked through, things which the "radical present" cannot hope to accomplish.
In Australia for instance our government will not address the horrors of colonialism because they argue they are not "implicated" by the past:they did not commit these horrors, and they do not thus exist in a continuum with them. You must understand then my fear and skepticism for this "radical present." Do you think a Native American author may accept your "radical present"?
Lastly, I am startled that you have read Foucault in this way. I feel that is a misreading of the Archeology. For Foucault, there are simply many conflicting continuums, which is what I have been arguing.
May I also quote Foucault: "the subject constitutes itself within history and is constantly established and reestablished by history".
As for "smk": this is really getting out of hand . . .
Mark,
I don't think you guys are dumb, maybe just happy.
I'm mostly trying to figure out my own stance, and not to think history just thru Joyce and Ball but thru Tost as well. I don't think I can persuade others to buy or not buy Avant-Garde Deodorant, or how or where to apply it.
My main gist is that today's 'radical present' isn't the same as the 'radical present' of Stein or Creeley or Debord's heyday: it's not an eternal form outside of time, one-size-fits-all instant avant-garde fixer-upper. A 'radical present' today strikes me not as a rupture of the norm, but a continuation of it.
My guess right now is that a contemporary equivalent of the 'radical present' of a previous avant-garde wouldn't be a repetition or re-insistence of that notion, but would function differently because the situation itself is different. Because temporality itself is different. And I find thinking, through these questions, about whether or not a notion like avant-garde has any use at all at present to be more exciting and generative than what looks to me as the replaying of a handful of (questionably) defining moves from the old playbook.
My thinking along these lines is pretty influenced by Jameson's "The End of Temporality" essay, where among other things he argues that a theory like a Deleuzian ideal of schizophrenia is less a theory that gives us a handle on the present moment than simply a seductive symptom of the logic of the present moment. And I think part of its seduction is exactly that it forms an attractive assemblage with avant-garde precursors like Artaud. What I'm trying to make clearer, if only for myself, is a way of making an assemblage or ensemble with these figures that doesn't flatten out historical difference.
I don't want to reduce these earlier figures to relics by just formalizing what are now read, through the mediation of our current notions of tradition and 'the present,' as an avant-garde turn away from tradition or the rendering of a radical present. One, because I don't read them as such, and two, because I don't want to bronze them in that singular of a pose.
Of course, it's up to debate to whether one buys that that's the case. I guess one way of viewing these things is to see to what degree these notions of tradition and resistance give us ground for our own creative work, and provide a means of communication and dialog with others who would want to share in a larger (even if, or especially if, undefined by a tag such as avant or read guard) project.
Tony, I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense regarding the notion of radical presence. Clearly, each moment has a different set of structures that invest it. It's not 1950 or 1910 anymore, no doubt about it. And what I like about Stan's assertion of the value of an avant garde is that it precisely is designed as an answer, in this historical moment, to the question about whether one needs to exist. He's not ducking the issue, you have to give him that, and his ideas are pretty intriguing. He's giving an emphatic yes: the notion of an avant garde needs to exist.
Nicholas, I still feel like you don't understand what Stan has said, and I'm not sure we agree on Foucault either. Foucault talks about how the historian creates continuum; that's a far cry from saying that the continuum, or even multiple ones, inheres in events themselves. Continuum is a function of thinking about history; it's not what the past is. I think that's what Stan and Foucault have in common. The quote about Ball that Stan uses on the 25th makes sense as an attempt to cause a rupture with a notion of the past defined as a lineage of necessity. As to the quote from the 23rd, I have no idea how you get from Stan's quote to your question about it. Stan's quote suggests an attempt to broaden our understanding of the moment, not escape it.
i think stan's right. and how does publishing elegant hermetic lovepoems contribute to our comprehension of history? because i see the new issue of shampoo is out...........
Mark, though I obviously don’t believe that historical continuums “inhere in events” – what could such “phenomenological anchorage” possibly mean? – I do believe, with Foucault, that certain causal continuums are more cogent than others. Though continuums are of course subjective analytic constructions then, some are more appropriate than others – they are not all “equally fictive” so to speak – and this is all Foucault is saying. Yes, a continuum is a way of “thinking history” as you say, but I don’t see anywhere in Stan’s manifesto an inclusion of such mindful historicity. I don’t see how the statements on Ball and Joyce constitute an inclusion of history into Stan’s avant-garde paradigm. Stan leaves no place for history in the construct, unless it be simply the leverage point for breakage. No?
To be honest though, seeing as I seem to be coming under some rather personal ad hominem attack - not from you or Stan, of course, but from a more anonymous internet demographic! - I should probably just try to tone down the discussion by saying that: I know your intentions are entirely good, I say this sincerely. It's simply the social ramifications of this project, over the purely praxis-based, which concern me. And I don't feel that these concerns have been properly addressed.
For instance, the only answer I'd like at the moment is to that part of my last comment, and of my initial post today, that we haven't touched upon, namely:
"It's all very well to be 'radically present', unless of course your culture is destined to live always, somewhat, in the past, because of what happened to it in that past. Some things need to be worked through, things which the 'radical present' cannot hope to accomplish."
Do you or Stan believe, do you think, that the 'radical present' can really accomplish this type of historical address or redress, the painful apercu?
Because I feel that this concern of mine rejoins Tony's, well articulated on his blog, that:
“Flattening notions of tradition or history as variations on the present would be, for myself, as an American poet of my social (non)marking, at this particular moment, not really a spookily radical move but more likely a spookily normative one.”
I simply can't imagine an avant-garde Algerian poet accepting your "radical present" as an appropriate way of addressing the cultural wounds of a colony and a war. He or she may even find the idea of such a "continual present" offensive.
If I don't understand you and Stan, it's for this reason. But it's perhaps important to note Mark that I freely admit that I don't understand, at this point in time. I just don't see how Stan's argument holds together. This may very well be my fault.
But I don't see how we can hope to be free of History or poetic history, or even proclaim this as a goal. To me it seems a frightening goal, paramount to the erasing of true pain, of true cause and effect.
How is it not the erasure of pain? That's all I wish to know. How is it not a pleasant blindness?
Hi Nicholas,
I find the emotional intensity of your response surprising. Let me reply that I don't advocate the destruction of cultural information at all; in fact, I view eclecticism as the quickest mode of transmission of cultural information, so that eclecticism, as I conceive of it, serves to conserve cultural information by transferring it to new places and putting it to new purposes.
What I am opposed to is the reifying concept of a series of parallel, separate (if not mutually exclusive) containers for cultural information called "traditions." Conceiving of cultural information that way actually limits the movement and transmission of cultural information, whereas privileging eclecticism privileges mixing.
I mean, what tradition do you propose to explore that's so vital? French, English? Those traditions aren't under threat my friend. So, in your case, a little more involvement in eclecticism might not hurt; you would probably learn more about things outside of the European canons.
Obviously, what I am advocating is for avant-garde writers to pursue eclectic knowledge about the world, to learn more about everywhere. You can't be a specialist in everywhere, so I'm calling for eclecticism as a way that writers can move towards a more general knowledge.
I don't think the role of avant-gardes is to preserve tradition in a reified state. And of course the role of European and American avant-gardes is not to preserve local culture in poorer countries where local traditions are threatened. But avant-gardes can learn from these cultures and, through eclecticism, can transmit some of the cultural information of those cultures, and, if the information, is repurposed, then that is just what happens. Cultural information is not static, however much a viewpoint based on traditions aims to pretend it is.
Furthermore, please do not confuse eclecticism with hegemony. U.S. hegemony proposes a false globalism where other countries are manipulated for U.S. advantage. U.S. hegemony is not eclectic; it does not borrow liberally and freely from other cultures and speed the transmission of cultural information. Rather, hegemony ignores the cultural information of the weaker nations, while subsidizing the expansion of the culture of the dominant nations. That is not what I am proposing. I am proposing eclecticism in a form that leads to real internationalism, a general transmission of cultural information--one might even say a free association of cultural information, with the figure of the artist as cosmopolitan mixer/arranger of that information.
hey all,
what a great conversation. i'm learning so much from everyone here so thank you.
just a few thoughts:
what first surprised me about stan's position is the complete lack of race in his discourse of the avant garde. as i've said before on stan's blog, when we try to apply his ideas of the 'avant-garde' it just doesn't work for what i've called the 'ethnic-avant'. clearly, stan is only really talking about a white avant-garde, which as nicholas and tony are pointing out, is far more heterogeneous than stan's portrait.
mark, with that in mind, there is no need to reconcile tradition with the notion of the avant garde because for the ethnic-avant there was and is not that divorce.
stan, why do you keep referring to cultural traditions as information? nicholas and tony are right to interrogate and frustrate your desire for culture to be information and therefore accessible to your eclectic desires.
this must be made clear: your conception of hegemony is naive. the kind of eclecticism you propose and western hegemony are not opposed, as you suggest; instead, eclecticism has always been a major epistemological vehicle of hegemony. this is an obvious point to any student of empire and a visceral reality for any subject of empire.
cs
CS, there was and is not what divorce? Please elaborate. Between what and what is there no separation?
To label any attempt at Stan's sense of eclecticism--that is, any attempt to find out about a culture other than our own--as hegemonic is like saying that translating a poem is hegemonic. I'm just curious if that's a position you would take.
Aren't you talking past each other? A writer whose culture has been on the receiving end of imperialism and an anti-imperialist western writer obviously will employ different strategies for reckoning with the official record. Isola's writing in Yoruba is hardly the equivalent of an American calling for English-only public education.
I've also missed something in the WCW thread (?), because no one believes that he somehow ignored history, American/Patersonian identity, etc., right? Williams would never have said that living in the present means erasing the past - just the opposite. (He went as far to say that modern poets and Homer were a community.) Dada's mission vis-a-vis culture was more hostile but likewise makes sense only as an engagement with it.
And of course in the American political sphere, the keepers of the keys benefit from public ignorance ("transcendence") of history -- like the prevailing belief that the 9/11 attack can only be understood as motiveless malice or whatever. Best to all,
Tim
Mark,
To start with a good, obvious notion and move forward: I think there's different ways of finding out about a culture. For instance:
One way would be to do the finding-out via a number of fixed coordinates pre-determined by one's own cultural assumptions; another way would be to do so in such a way that the culture itself one is finding-out-about ends up altering one's coordinates, or alters what one takes to be a coordinate.
It may be my own limitation, but I have a hard time imagining the second way occurring without recognizing that another culture circulates and shares tendencies of subjectivity, duration, change, technique, substance, the senses, and so forth, which are not interchangeable with one's own; and that these differing, shared tendencies are very much involved when one talks about tradition.
(My hesitancy before the notion of 'cultural information' is that it compacts these differing, specific notions into a forced interchangeability.)
Similarly, one can imagine a translation that with assumed benevolence 'improves' a poem while rendering it in one's own language by modernizing/rationalizing/rendering-as-information that poem to better synch-up with the coordinates of one's cultural moment; this would seem to be an act that would fall under your hegemonic banner.
Likewise, one can imagine a translation that becomes a means of having the original poem influence and alter the translator's sense of what poetry or poetic is, and this would seem unlikely occur at the level of information (which involves recognition) but at the level of perception, where the process of intensely reading and feeling the original poem's engagement with its language and tradition(s) and cultural moment becomes a means of deepening or even altering one's own sense of engagement with not only the original poem but with one's own language and culture and tradition(s), or even altering what the contours and aspects of relation may be.
I know the question was directed at CS, but I thought I would chime in with my take, knowing that others may have quite different responses.
hey tony,
i love your responses! so thoughtful.
hey mark,
i just stole your words ("there was and is not what divorce? Please elaborate. Between what and what is there no separation?") for a poem. quite lovely.
and to give just one example of tony's fine point re: the bad kind of translation, look at the violent history of translating Native American poetry, song, oral tradition.
cs
Thanks, Tony and CS. Both your comments suggest a useful understanding of the complexity of translation. In relation to earlier comments, I had some concerns that you were rejecting outright the possibility of worthwhile cross-cultural contact, but I see now that that's not the case.
Hi CS,
I've mentioned race several times in my critique of tradition, actually, when I've said that one of my problems with the packaging of cultural information as a series of distinct, parallel traditions is that it perpetuates a fantasy of each tradition as a body of racial information. I don't think that a tradition is naturally associated with a race; I think that association can only be maintained by a racial discourse. Now, a racial discourse can do a few positive things, and it can do a lot of negative things. I would suggest that it is a bad strategic move, and a bad philosophical move, for ethnic avant-gardes to pin their concepts of tradition on the idea of traditions as racial discourses. Is that really something you want to do? What kind of exclusionary logics are you holding up then? I think the benefits of those exclusionary logics are going to be short-term at best.
I certainly know quite a few non-white avant-garde poets who take a very eclectic approach to culture, so the argument that I'm representing a "white avant-garde" viewpoint is a total non-starter. That is just plain wrong.
As for the question of why I keep referring to traditions as information, I don't. I say that traditions are containers for information, and that that information could instead move more rapidly, and go more places, if approached more eclectically. I might have a broader sense of what constitutes information than you do. Ways of perceiving, differing modes of perception, are things that people can be informed about, and indeed an avant-garde like surrealism spent a lot of effort informing people about different perceptual possibilities.
Thanks for the polite and positive tone of your comments.
Hi Nick,
You had wanted me to respond to this point: "It's all very well to be 'radically present', unless of course your culture is destined to live always, somewhat, in the past, because of what happened to it in that past. Some things need to be worked through, things which the 'radical present' cannot hope to accomplish."
I do not want to erase or elide history-as-trauma, but I do see it as something that takes place in the present. The processing of traumatic histories is present-tense--happening now. Obviously, tramautic memories, whether personal memories or memories passed down through generations, are something that must be approached respectfully, by the holders of those memories and by others. Perhaps to say that those memories might be open to sampling, or other eclectic appropriations, is to go too far. Still, I don't favor the sacralization of these past traumas, because, as you've possibly noticed, I don't favor the sacralization of anything. I would say that any reference to other people's trauma and suffering should be made respectfully, and I think eclecticism can proceed respectfully. I don't favor respectful silence--what's the benefit of it?
The response to a traumatic past, anyway, strikes me as more an assault on that past than as a conservation of it. The response to the horrors of history that I understand is anger and a search for new assumptions. What's most offensive about the present is the perpetuation of false ideas that were the same false ideas that created brutality in the past.
hey stan,
great points. sure conceptions of 'blood memory' is exclusionary perhaps...but not so bad.
i really mean that most ethnic-avants i know would not fit into your representation of the 'avant'. a bad a starter for sure, but was simply a generalization to complicate your generalizations.
yes i think your idea of information is much more broader than mine. thanks for clarifying.
and yes surrealism also spent alot of time refining their orientalism.
cheers,
cs
warhammer gold warhammer money warhammer accounts tibia money tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape money runescape gold runescape gp runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling cheap rs2 powerleveling runescape equipment buy rs equipment runescape runes cheap rs2 runes runescape logs cheap rs2 logs runescape items buy runescape items runescape quest point rs2 quest point cheap runescape questpoint runescape gold runescape items runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape accounts runescape gp runescape accounts runescape money runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling tibia gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas wow power leveling wow powerleveling runescape questpoint rs2 questpoint Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling Hellgate money Hellgate gold buy runescape logs buy rs2 items cheap runescape items Hellgate London gold Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape items rs2 accounts cheap rs2 equipments lotro gold buy lotro gold buy runescape money buy runescape gold buy runescape runes lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling eve isk eve online isk buy runescape power leveling rs2 power leveling tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts Fiesta Silver Fiesta Gold Scions of Fate Gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium SOF Gold Age Of Conan Gold AOC Gold ArchLord gold tibia money tibia gold runescape accounts runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling buy ArchLord gold DDO Plat Dungeons and Dragons Online Plat
warhammer gold warhammer money warhammer accounts tibia money tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape money runescape gold runescape gp runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling cheap rs2 powerleveling runescape equipment buy rs equipment runescape runes cheap rs2 runes runescape logs cheap rs2 logs runescape items buy runescape items runescape quest point rs2 quest point cheap runescape questpoint runescape gold runescape items runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape accounts runescape gp runescape accounts runescape money runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling tibia gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas wow power leveling wow powerleveling runescape questpoint rs2 questpoint Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling Hellgate money Hellgate gold buy runescape logs buy rs2 items cheap runescape items Hellgate London gold Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape items rs2 accounts cheap rs2 equipments lotro gold buy lotro gold buy runescape money buy runescape gold buy runescape runes lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling eve isk eve online isk buy runescape power leveling rs2 power leveling tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts Fiesta Silver Fiesta Gold Scions of Fate Gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium SOF Gold Age Of Conan Gold AOC Gold ArchLord gold tibia money tibia gold runescape accounts runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling buy ArchLord gold DDO Plat Dungeons and Dragons Online Plat
Post a Comment