Friday, January 31, 2014

3 Cosas Cleaners Face Ongoing Conflict With Unison

A picketer outside the IWGB's 'battle bus' in London this week
The Industrial Workers of Great Britain's '3 Cosas' ('3 things' in Spanish) campaign has concluded three days of strike action against the University of London and cleaning subcontractors Cofely GDF-Suez. Having achieved their first two wishes (holidays and sick pay) at the end of last year, the cleaners were going for their third - pensions.

The success of the rank and file union was one of 2013's bright spots - harnessing the solidarity of London radicals and workers, and winning significant improvements to the lives of the largely female and Spanish-speaking workforce. However, they still face significant challenges, not least due to the role of the Unison union as the bosses' first line of defence.

The 3 Cosas campaign has made use of innovative strategies over the past few months, which have served them well and are worth replicating across other movements. The IWGB has put out many press releases via its 3 Cosas Wordpress, plus YouTube publicity videos featuring the striking workers themselves. Some videos promote the strike fund, which raised £6,000 for workers during the last stoppage, and encouraged them to go all out for three days this time. A 3 Cosas 'battle bus' has made a whistlestop tour of prominent London locations, and the self-produced 'Open Book' strike bulletin has also gone towards getting the workers' perspective out there among the wider public. All of these efforts - whilst cementing internal solidarity - have caused great embarrassment to the employers.

From the beginning of 3 Cosas, the cleaners' former union - Unison - has tried to sabotage the grassroots campaign at every turn. In late November, when 3 Cosas workers struck against the university, Unison and the uni tried to maintain a public fiction that it was Unison who had secured the concessions. As Harry Stopes wrote at the time:
Cleaners and supporters outside Parliament
"Both the university and BBW [former contractors Balfour Beatty] have said that the concessions were made following negotiations with Unison, and had nothing to do with the IWGB or 3 Cosas. In one sense this is true; only Unison has been invited to meet with the employers, and the deal is the product of their negotiations. The University of London tweeted that the agreement was 'a great result for Unison, the voice of moderation and constructive two way dialogue', and that 'constructive dialogue' had triumphed over 'staff intimidation'. But it can't be a coincidence that the deal [...] has only been offered after several noisy demonstrations and a well attended strike, all organised by the workers through the IWGB."
Now the Unison sub-plot thickens still further. Today, it has been revealed that two cleaners are to be disciplined by management for attending a picket, and according to an IWGB Twitter account "it was the UNISON rep, who doubles as the Cleaning Services Manager, who sent out the investigation meeting letter!" Apparently the same woman had told a picket that she "didn't believe in striking".

Sharon Bracey - the cleaning manager/Unison organiser in question - perfectly illustrates some of the contradictions which often exist within corporate unions. Sure, she is a low level operative, and reps in many workplaces would not be similar. But Bracey is the cleaners' manager within the business world, and strives to manage their anger at her own actions too. In one hat she is supposed to squeeze ever more profit out of them, and in the other she seeks to facilitate this through her union position.

Both the university and BBW have said that the concessions were made following negotiations with Unison, and had nothing to do with the IWGB or 3 Cosas. In one sense this is true; only Unison has been invited to meet with the employers, and the deal is the product of their negotiations. The University of London tweeted that the agreement was ‘a great result for Unison, the voice of moderation and constructive two way dialogue’, and that ‘constructive dialogue’ had triumphed over ‘staff intimidation’. But it can’t be a coincidence that the deal (which is yet to be formally accepted) has only been offered after several noisy demonstrations and a well attended strike, all organised by the workers through the IWGB. - See more at: http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/12/03/harry-stopes/not-a-recognised-union/#sthash.RYuwKphR.dpuf
Both the university and BBW have said that the concessions were made following negotiations with Unison, and had nothing to do with the IWGB or 3 Cosas. In one sense this is true; only Unison has been invited to meet with the employers, and the deal is the product of their negotiations. The University of London tweeted that the agreement was ‘a great result for Unison, the voice of moderation and constructive two way dialogue’, and that ‘constructive dialogue’ had triumphed over ‘staff intimidation’. But it can’t be a coincidence that the deal (which is yet to be formally accepted) has only been offered after several noisy demonstrations and a well attended strike, all organised by the workers through the IWGB. - See more at: http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/12/03/harry-stopes/not-a-recognised-union/#sthash.RYuwKphR.dpuf
Both the university and BBW have said that the concessions were made following negotiations with Unison, and had nothing to do with the IWGB or 3 Cosas. In one sense this is true; only Unison has been invited to meet with the employers, and the deal is the product of their negotiations. The University of London tweeted that the agreement was ‘a great result for Unison, the voice of moderation and constructive two way dialogue’, and that ‘constructive dialogue’ had triumphed over ‘staff intimidation’. But it can’t be a coincidence that the deal (which is yet to be formally accepted) has only been offered after several noisy demonstrations and a well attended strike, all organised by the workers through the IWGB. - See more at: http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/12/03/harry-stopes/not-a-recognised-union/#sthash.RYuwKphR.dpuf
As yet, IWGB 3 Cosas' response to this latest attempt at intimidation has not been made public. But one thing is for sure - 3 Cosas cleaners will be asking for more solidarity in the weeks to come. Meanwhile, their story is a practical illustration of the argument that workers need to control their own struggles, through their own organisations.

Escalation of Repression as Students Pledge to Mobilise

The following is a reposted joint press release from Defend Education Birmingham, Defend the Right to Protest and the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts. Contact 07964791663, 07835769988, 07842765067.

  • 14 students arrested at University of Birmingham following national mobilisation
  • Students held in custody for over 24 hours.
  • 2 students suspended from the University of Birmingham
  • Excessive bail conditions given to students without charge 
  • 2 students denied bail and tried next day on violent disorder charges
Following a national demonstration on Wednesday 29th January 2014 at the University of Birmingham, fourteen students were arrested. Twelve students have been bailed until 26th March 2014, after being held in custody for over 24 hours. Two students have been charged with violent disorder and are to appear at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court at 10:00 today (Friday 31st January 2014). The students are being remanded in custody until their appearance. The charge of violent disorder carries a maximum sentence of 8 years in jail. 

All but 2 of the students released last night have not been charged, although bail conditions imposed include:

- To live and sleep every night at their home address
- Not to enter any University or further education grounds or premises
- Not to meet publicly in groups of 10 or more people without police consent
- Not to associate with the other students arrested

On Wednesday, following a static demonstration and a banner drop from the Joseph Chamberlain clock tower, the protest entered the Great Hall. On leaving peacefully and of their own accord, hundreds of students were kettled in a courtyard outside the Aston Webb Building for between two and four hours, without access to food or water. When students were finally allowed to leave in pairs, West Midlands Police forced all students present their personal details. Some students refused to do so, and were subsequently arrested. In a recent High Court judgment, this action was found to be in breach of human rights legislation.

There is no doubt in our mind that police tactics constituted kettling, and it is expected that protesters will pursue legal action against the police. Commenting on the situation, Simon Natas of ITN solicitors said, ‘‘In the case of Mengesha v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, heard in June last year, the High Court ruled that it was unlawful for the police to require people to provide their names and addresses as a condition of release from a kettle or containment.’ He went on to say he found it ‘very disturbing indeed if any police force was still engaging in this practice.’

Two Birmingham University students have been suspended from their studies because of their involvement in political campaigning. This is a similar draconian and authoritarian action to the recent suspensions at the University of Sussex that were reversed after a national outcry.

Deborah Hermanns, a student with Birmingham Defend Education who was released last night, said: 

“This week we have faced an open attempt to crush dissent on at our university by an unelected clique of managers. They have shown constant intransigence by refusing to negotiate with us all year, instead spending tens of thousands of pounds getting injunctions, increased security and calling in police – that is the only argument they have left.”

A spokesperson for the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts, said: “We are witnessing a violent and draconian assault on the right to organise. The student movement is back, under a banner of free, democratic education – and the reaction of management and the police proves our point. Anyone who views what has happened as acceptable is not fit to run a university, and we will make it our business to remove them.”

Defend Education Birmingham called the national demonstration on the campus after months of ongoing protests around the country. Students remain in occupation at the University. 

There is a rally outside Birmingham magistrate’s court at 9.30am today, as well as a demonstration at the University of London.

The national meeting student meeting in Birmingham on Wednesday backed a call for coordinated direct action and occupations from 6th February, when staff take strike action.

ENDS

Saturday, January 25, 2014

The New Working Class Movement: Workplace Organisation

Strikers during the IWW-led 'Bread and Roses' textile strike of 1912
"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth." - Preamble to the Industrial Workers of the World constitution

This is the second post in a series setting out my perspective on the development of a new working class movement in the UK and worldwide. The first part focused on community organisation, while future blogs will look at how we can beat the cuts locally and nationally, the importance of intersectionality to class struggle, the place of the UK working class in the world struggle, creating a new world, full socialism, and full communism.

In general, union organising in the UK is at a dire low ebb. In the face of a ruling class onslaught unprecedented within living memory, workers are offering little to no organised resistance. Despite cuts across the public sector, and ever increasing pressure in the private sector, the number of strike days 'lost' to employers in 2012 (the last year for which records are available) was 248,000 - the lowest level since 2005, during the pre-credit crunch 'golden years'. Over the five years of the 'great recession', they have been kept down to a historically low 600,000 per annum. Strike days aren't a complete measure of resistance levels, but they do show that the prevailing trend is downward. Government, corporate bosses and trade union leaders must be quietly congratulating themselves that they appear to have managed mass 'great recession' anger so well.
248,800
248,800

It's vital that a strong criticism of the union bureaucracies is made. As I wrote in a 2012 article:
"For me, the trade unions - and different groups' relationships with them - are central to the entire question. The union bureaucracies have separate and distinct material interests to their rank and file, and whenever a dispute occurs, they act in accordance with those interests. Understanding that their privileges depend on effectively policing their membership, they set about this task with vigour, systematically managing the grassroots anger in such a way as it causes the least possible inconvenience to the bosses, while still 'talking a good game' right up to the point of the final sellout."
But that isn't the full story. Due to Thatcher's anti-trade union attacks, the suppression of class struggle during the Blair/Brown years, and the wholesale restructuring of the UK economy, an entire generation - or perhaps even two - has come to maturity with no example of workplace organising at all to follow. Union membership is down from half the working population in 1979 to 26% today. Within union membership, there has been an increase in the percentage of people in 'professional' or associated occupations, and these are often highly qualified. The economic crisis has played a large part in this trend. In 2007, there were 982,000 trade unionists in manufacturing and construction; now it is down to 586,000. Many of those jobs don't exist any more, while others have simply stopped paying their union dues because it doesn't get them anywhere. Trade unionists are also now relatively old. In 1991, 22% of workers under 24 were in a union. In 2012, this was down to just 4.1%.

So there are vast swathes of the working class for whom trade unions simply don't exist, who have maybe never even heard that they exist. These people are predominantly younger and in precarious (at best) employment. These are the people who are private sector or outsourced public sector, performing 'unskilled' labour, doing internships or 'apprenticeships' at a ridiculous wage, moving job to job, working two or more zero hour jobs, on workfare, and/or suffering long periods of unemployment. They are currently the least likely to organise at work - even though they have the least to lose. And they are the people who most need to, who can set an example to the rest of the class.

Though much smaller these days, the IWW are still organising in a similar way
The layer of society I have described may seem like a very 2014 phenomenon. But in many ways, they share similarities with the type of people who made up the bulk of the Industrial Workers of the World when it was in its heyday pre-World War One. This was particularly true in the western areas of the US, where the IWW had much success in building 'against the odds'. People without strong roots went from job to job, town to town and even country to country, but wherever they went and whatever they did, they could build the 'One Big Union', and take action to support those in struggle everywhere. One brief history described how:
"The workers were largely migrant and so had no permanent workplace through which they could be physically organised. As an alternative, western workers made the “mixed local” the basis of their organisation. Centred on the union hall, the mixed local was a geographically based organisation, which included both the employed and unemployed."
I therefore believe an organisation in the tradition of the IWW is the best way of organising workers in this hyper-globalised, hyper-competitive world. It may not be the IWW itself. Two and a half years on from Occupy, a movement could spring up any day and spread memetically via Twitter and Facebook in hours. But it should be organised along the same lines as the IWW.

That is to say, the new union must be:
  • run democratically, by its own grassroots membership
  • be open to every working class person (wage earner, domestic worker, student or welfare recipient)
  • organise across every industry
  • organise across the planet
  • embrace a diversity of tactics - strikes, sick-outs, work to rule, revenue strikes, go slow, overtime ban, occupations, sabotage, social media campaigns - whatever is needed and whatever works
The recent and ongoing success of the IWGB (an IWW breakaway)'s '3 Cosas' campaign shows what can be achieved when workers are in control of their own struggles. One of the best things about 3 Cosas has been its success in uniting London radicals of all historical ideologies and none behind real, horizontally-organised working class fightback. Unlike its anarcho-syndicalist counterpart SolFed, the IWW model (and indeed the IWGB's) is a space where working class people can organise themselves regardless of political affiliation, without worrying too much for now - when we're at such a low level - about which past failed revolution we want to emulate most.

Due to the rank and file control, plus the aim of creating 'one big union' regardless of profession, the IWW model has the potential to reach out beyond the walls of whatever workplace, and out into communities. This can win the vital support of customers in the private sector, and service users in the public sector. This second combination will be necessary to stop future national and local government cuts, and that will be the topic of part three in this series.

Monday, January 20, 2014

Class War and the Need to Intervene in 2015

I know a lot of comrades will disagree with me on this, and that's fine. Let's work together where we do agree.

Anarchist group Class War's entry into the 2015 general election with  twenty-two prospective candidates is already starting to cause a bit of a stir. They're sure to gain much more attention for themselves and for revolutionary politics when they get campaigning. They will also open up broader debates about the class system at a time when the media will doubtless be hammering us with 'there's no alternative' to austerity for the already poor. Like Class War, I think it's important that those of us who work day in day out for revolutionary transformation should proactively and provocatively intervene in the great spectacle that is parliamentary politics.

Of course, I know all the usual objections, and I've come out with them all myself in the past. The capitalist state needs to be abolished. Positive change could never come through parliament - except as a rubber stamp for gains won in communities and workplaces. Running for parliament takes up a huge amount of time, energy and money, none of which any of us have much of. Those are all very important and worthy points. I agree with each and every one.

But I'm also excited by what Ian Bone wrote in his election 'statement of intent':
"We are doing this to launch a furious and co-ordinated political offensive against the ruling class with the opportunity an election gives us to talk politics to our class. We in no way see the election as an alternative to direct action [...] The ruling class have us by the throat - they need a short sharp kick in the bollocks. Our election campaign will use any means necessary. We won’t be ushered away by PR minders – we will make ourselves central to the campaign in a funny, rumbustious combative and imaginative way. We will be on the streets and in their faces."
I think that five years into austerity, this is exactly what is needed. The last election was bad enough. For weeks on end the media - and the people in the places we spend our everyday lives - were talking about politics far more than usual. When friends, family or whoever asked us what we thought, all we could come up with was the kind of things I mentioned in the second paragraph - i.e. the details that only would-be revolutionaries care about. Our mumbled answers turn people off our politics, at precisely the time they could be the most turned on. Meanwhile, the political agenda is being driven more to the right by the hour.

With the dominant narrative being that there needs to be lots more cuts, the micro-differences between the big pro-capitalist parties are about precisely who within the working class should be attacked first, and how fast.

In 2015, the people we know are going to be saying they hate politics, and "they're all the same" more than ever before, but they're also going to get a bit swept up in the 'who should be cut?' game. And if we leave the field clear, the mainstream will be free to use populist fascists and particularly UKIP to push the agenda even further to the right.

If we do stand candidates, they should be completely honest about the need for people to link up with emerging resistance movements if they are to make real change. Intervention in the electoral process doesn't need to be about standing candidates. But it does need to be the kind of "funny, rumbustious combative and imaginative" stuff which Ian Bone is talking about. A lot of us 'troll' politicians on social media. Even if we don't have a candidate standing against prominent Tory, Labour or Lib Dem politicians, why not make an effort to troll them 'in real life' at every opportunity?

I believe we should use the opportunity of the 2015 election to puncture the illusion that politics is simply a matter of voting for one or another anti-working class candidate. We must be boldly, publicly, unashamedly on the side of the oppressed. We must not pretend to be the struggle; we must make a clarion call to join the struggle. By hook or by crook, we must force our way onto the stage, and show the lackeys of the system up for what they are.

We know when the election will be: 7th May next year. Let's get our thinking caps on about what we're going to do, and how we're going to do it.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Mayor's Media Machine in Overdrive Ahead of More Liverpool Cuts

Labour mayor Joe Anderson is denying all responsibility for his cuts
Labour mayor Joe Anderson is currently running scared of the people of Liverpool, ahead of a fourth round of massive cuts to the city's budget on his watch. Since before Christmas, the council has been pumping out stats and charts, in a "campaign" designed to show that yet more devastation is necessary, and trying to pin full blame on the Tories. This misinformation has now reached fever pitch, with the Trinity Mirror-owned and Labour-supporting Liverpool Echo doing its best to let Labour off the hook, and prepare the ground for more acts of fiscal vandalism.

Last year, Anderson and Labour passed the following measures in their March budget:
  • The closure of more than half the city's libraries
  • Withdrawal of funding for housing "socially excluded" people at risk of homelessness
  • Youth and play services turned over to volunteers
  • School uniform grants eliminated
  • Sale of four nurseries
  • Sale of council centre providing short breaks for disabled children
  • Rubbish collections halved in many areas of the city
  • Closure of two municipal golf courses
  • Rise in council tax charges, with abolition of exemptions for many of the poorest
In the run up to this, Anderson had felt pressure from members of the public at a number of events. In early January, protesters had tarred him with the same brush as David Cameron, when he met the prime minister to launch a business festival. A few weeks later, the council chamber was briefly occupied at the same time as Anderson was holding a "fair austerity" conference, and he had to rush back to confront the occupiers, before calling the police on them. Then over the next month or so, protests grew outside the town hall as councillors met to discuss cuts. This culminated in a stormy demo on the day councillors voted the budget through, which prompted Anderson to tweet his "support" for the demonstrators, many of whom had come from feeder marches in different parts of the city, and stretched far beyond the longstanding activist base.

By the looks of things, Anderson is fearing even greater hostility - and possibly active resistance - this time around. That seem the only way of explaining the barrage of Twitter infographics such as this one, explaining that, well...they haven't got much money, and therefore 'must' make "#toughchoices". And over the last week, the Labour cheerleaders in the Liverpool Echo has given Anderson's team space to make his case for "balancing the books" by "saving" £156 million.

This effort started at the end of last week, with a manufactured row between Cameron and Anderson - whose positions on local council funding have remained unchanged for years now - across the Echo's pages. Yesterday, amidst talk of halving 'discretionary' spending, and cutting mandatory services by a quarter, Anderson told the paper:
"I know people will be worried about how they may be affected, and the truth is it will impact on every service in the city. The stark reality is that it will mean less of absolutely everything, whether it is libraries, leisure centres, children’s centres or social care buildings."
This morning, the Echo quoted council chief executive Ged Fitzgerald threatening the job security, pay and conditions of all 5,500 council employees, before kindly summarising: "The ECHO understands that the council will target the cuts at certain non-essential areas in order to try to protect the most vulnerable."

Before the 5th March budget meeting, the Echo will continue to trumpet Anderson's variations on Thatcher's old famous phrase - 'There is no alternative'. Meanwhile, it's becoming ever more clear that the only alternative to the liquidation of council services must be provided by the local working class, as part of a national and even international struggle.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

How Could Fire Station Closures Be Prevented?

Firefighter Alex Badcock (right)'s tears captured the mood and the media attention
The scenes at fire stations across London last week were very sad ones indeed. Ten were shuttered for the final time, to comply with Mayor Boris Johnson's plans to save £45 million - i.e. make that money available for elite interests.

Five hundred and eighty eight jobs were lost, as shifts ended at Belsize, Bow, Clerkenwell, Downham, Kingsland, Knightsbridge, Silvertown, Southwark, Westminster and Woolwich. The station at Clerkenwell was Europe's oldest, having served the local community for 141 years.

During Johnson's fraudulent 'consultation' on the cuts, 94% of London respondents opposed his plans. In response, the number of station closures was slightly reduced, but the number of job losses was increased. The commissioner of the London fire brigade has predicted that the cuts will result in delayed response times. Paul Embery, London regional secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), was more explicit about what this will mean: "Boris Johnson will have blood on his hands. It will be only a matter of time before someone dies because a fire engine did not get to them in time."

It was yet another episode in the ruling class austerity drive, which aims to reduce government spending to a bare minimum, and sell off every aspect of social provision, under the guise of tackling government's debts. This neoliberalism raises the spectre of a long gone age, when private firefighters only tackled fires affecting insured buildings. Of course, fires would quickly spread from uninsured to insured properties, bringing home to the rich the need for a free, municipal service.

London is far from alone in facing cuts to fire service provision, with authorities across the country being told to make millions of pounds worth of cuts to their operations. On Merseyside for instance, the number of engines has been slashed by one third over the last three years, and worse is yet to come. Yet the FBU bureaucracy has refused to draw the obvious link between cuts in London at cuts nationwide, pointing the finger at Boris Johnson as an individual, rather than even the Conservative Party as a whole, never mind the coalition government, or the financial elites. And industrial action of any kind was never raised as a possibility. When England and Wales firefighters struck against pension cuts in December, the union tops did not make any connection to the station closures and job losses. Instead, the London anti-closures campaign was kept isolated, and limited to a legal challenge with a "moral argument" and a website.

So the closures began to take on an air of inevitability, and anger gave way to the sorrow on display last Thursday. FBU general secretary Matt Wrack's Twitter feed collected this sadness, but gave no indication of how it could been prevented, or how future closures can be stopped before they get any further into the planning.

Of course, it's not easy to come up with such a strategy. That task falls to the mass rank and file, who must now know that Wrack will do nothing effective to protect their jobs, their pensions, and the services that communities depend on. I can appreciate that when you already have massive public support, such as the London consultation demonstrated, a strike might not be the best idea. After all, if there are no serious incidents during the strike period, the media would try to say it showed the minimal need for a fire service!

But consider a totally different scenario. What if the firefighters had simply refused to leave the stations at the end of their shifts on Thursday? What if they had announced that they would continue protecting the community, and asked the community to come out and protect them? What if they had put out a call to all others facing 'austerity' workplace attacks - including firefighters all over England and Wales - to form a rank and file committee of resistance?
The FBU’s regional secretary for London, Paul Embery, said: “Boris Johnson will have blood on his hands. It will be only a matter of time before someone dies because a fire engine did not get to them in time.
“You cannot close ten fire stations and slash nearly 600 firefighter jobs without compromising public safety.
- See more at: http://union-news.co.uk/2014/01/join-protests-across-london-fire-stations-close-doors-last-time/#sthash.TpAt06gw.dpuf
The commissioner of the London Fire Brigade has predicted that the cuts will result in delayed response times to four million Londoners. - See more at: http://union-news.co.uk/2014/01/join-protests-across-london-fire-stations-close-doors-last-time/#sthash.TpAt06gw.dpuf
The commissioner of the London Fire Brigade has predicted that the cuts will result in delayed response times to four million Londoners. - See more at: http://union-news.co.uk/2014/01/join-protests-across-london-fire-stations-close-doors-last-time/#sthash.TpAt06gw.dpuf
The commissioner of the London Fire Brigade has predicted that the cuts will result in delayed response times to four million Londoners. - See more at: http://union-news.co.uk/2014/01/join-protests-across-london-fire-stations-close-doors-last-time/#sthash.TpAt06gw.dpuf
The commissioner of the London Fire Brigade has predicted that the cuts will result in delayed response times to four million Londoners. - See more at: http://union-news.co.uk/2014/01/join-protests-across-london-fire-stations-close-doors-last-time/#sthash.TpAt06gw.dpuf

Imagine how the framework of the austerity 'debate' would have been changed overnight, in a way which Occupy and UK Uncut failed to do over months. From 'should we cut benefits or hospitals more?', it would have become 'why are we even considering closing fire stations when state-owned banks are paying out billions in bonuses?'

That scenario did not take place. There are deep seated reasons for that. But something spectacular along those lines - organised by the rank and file - is the only thing which has the potential to stop the austerity juggernaut in its tracks.

Disqus for Infantile Disorder