Why the Left must continue to support elimination

As the delta variant rips through NSW and, increasingly, Victoria, the Morrison government continues to insist that we must learn to live with the virus. By denying adequate economic support, the Coalition is using the dull compulsion of economic relations to undermine the efficacy of lockdowns and coerce state governments.

In the face of this, most of the Left has stood firm behind the necessity of hard lockdowns, border closures and an elimination strategy. As New Zealand proves, this is realistic and can still work. However, just as Morrison’s sabotage of Australia’s pandemic response gains ground, some progressives have broken ranks to argue that the cost of elimination is simply too high.


The anti-lockdown Left

Perhaps the most histrionic contribution has been by University of Sydney Director of Culture Strategy Tim Soutphommasane and Sydney Policy Lab Director Marc Stears. Writing for the ABC, they argue that during year two of the pandemic, ‘the progressive consensus has become sharply more conservative. It has swung in support of ‘Fortress Australia’.’ They assert that the Left has abandoned cosmopolitanism in favour of economic protectionism. Having been seduced by the belief that ‘restrictions on people’s freedom isn’t [sic] just tolerable, but now normal,’ they accuse the Left of having ceded defending liberty to the Right.

With the breathlessness that usually belies over-hasty epochal declarations, Soutphommasane and Stears state that ‘COVID-19 has not only upended our daily lives in this country, but also the ideological political order.’ That we have abandoned the ‘language of hope’ and instead ‘fallen under the thrall of fear.’

Soutphommasane and Stears aren’t alone. The Sydney Policy Lab argued in May that vaccinations will be sufficient for dealing with the virus, and that border restrictions and quarantines harm multiculturalism. Writing in Junkee, Michelle Rennex defended the Berejiklian government’s decision to allow the Reject Shop and Bunnings to stay open because poor people shop there. Others have raised the alarm that border closures are creating a ‘Fortress Australia‘ and that the mental health costs of lockdowns are beginning to outweigh the public health benefits.

The Australian Left is an anxious bunch, and self-criticism is a house specialty. So perhaps it’s time to ask: are we losing our soul? Has the pandemic torn away the mask of tolerance, revealing a moustached General Secretary eager to sacrifice the individual on the altar of the state? Has our progressive superego passed out after too many lonely nights of sourdough and yoga, allowing repressed nationalism and racism to bubble up?

Have the ancient prophecies of horseshoe theory finally come to pass—are we just as bad as the conservatives?

Obviously, the answer is no. The problem isn’t that these analyses criticise specific measures. The Left has had no trouble pointing towards the disproportionate impact of lockdowns in working class and migrant areas. And we’ve had no trouble criticising specific measures or restrictions that are counterproductive or unnecessary.


Between equal rights…

Rather, critics of lockdowns and pandemic restrictions on the Left make two mistakes. The first is to isolate elements or consequences of Australia’s pandemic response from the broader social and political context. The second is to adopt a paranoid style of political analysis.

Take, for example, the question of civil liberties. Echoing American liberals who are in no position to lecture others about freedom and in particular, Glenn Greenwald, who thinks that quarantine facilities amount to state-run detention centres, Soutphommasane and Stears argue that the centre-left has abandoned defending human rights. Solidarity magazine argues that the authorities have used lockdowns to ‘restrict the right to protest’ and organise at work.

As the last thirty years prove, Australian governments can build prisons and restrict civil liberties whenever they like, without camouflage. John Howard built the detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru openly. After the first Rudd government partly closed them, Julia Gillard reopened both camps—again, openly. Similarly, state and federal governments have progressively curtailed civil liberties and restricted the rights to protest for years, all without any need to conceal their actions. Protesters protest and the Saturday Paper exasperates—meanwhile, the government carries on.

Indeed, if restricting dissent had been the secret goal, we could say that it has not been achieved. Because the Left has largely supported pandemic restrictions, activist organisations have refrained from holding protests during outbreaks. It’s true that police have fined protesters during one or two socially distanced actions. And the NSW and Victorian governments have, at various times, attempted to block rallies. But the right to protest has not been lost. To the contrary—it was confidently reasserted by mass crowds at Invasion Day rallies, at protests in solidarity with Palestine and at smaller actions supporting refugees.

There’s a deeper problem with how the anti-lockdown Left has approached the question of rights. By abstracting certain rights (freedom of assembly, for example) from others (the right to health), the anti-lockdown Left misunderstands how rights work and separates them from their social context.

To explain this, take a pre-pandemic example. In 2018, the NSW government introduced laws banning protests outside abortion clinics, bringing the state in line with most of Australia. Some on the Left opposed this move, claiming it constituted an authoritarian attack on the right to protest.

They were wrong on two levels. Since the bans, anti-choice activists have continued to organise annual misogynistic rallies unimpeded. More importantly, anti-choice protests outside abortion clinics infringe upon women’s right to access medical services without harassment or shame. So, two rights were in conflict: freedom of assembly and women’s right to bodily autonomy. Banning protests outside abortion clinics successfully balanced between these two rights. The restrictions constitute a marginal imposition on the right to assembly, with no broader consequences. More importantly, the ban upholds women’s rights.

The same logic applies to the pandemic. All freedoms are subordinate to life because the dead are not free. Last week, Berejiklian made this point explicitly, although she disagrees with prioritising life. As she argued:

Death is horrible but we also need to put things into perspective. At the moment, there are eight million citizens who don’t have a choice in how they spend their free time, who don’t have a choice about what they can do, when they can leave their homes. That is no way to live … So we have to get very real about what we’re facing. And I know sometimes it’s difficult to hear. But this is what will get us through, this is the light at the end of the tunnel. It’s accepting that Covid is part of our lives, accepting that unfortunately people will die.

As this makes clear in the negative, to oppose lockdowns and restrictions on the basis of this or that right is to counterpose that right to the rights to health and life. Attempting to balance these books leads to grim utilitarian calculations. Should 1000 people die for our freedom of movement? Precisely how many should die so we can shop at the Reject Shop? Like market relations, these calculations thrive on abstraction. It’s easier to assert that 1000 deaths are a tragic necessity if dying of Covid-19 is normalized—and if you don’t know anyone at risk or who has died.


Critical criticism

This isn’t to say that pandemic restrictions are consequence-free. On one level, it’s true that when we closed our borders, we acted in step with Australia’s history of isolationism. However, it’s a leap to suggest that this is building a ‘Hermit Kingdom’ and encouraging xenophobia or anti-migrant sentiment.

Indeed, the opposite logic applies just as well: if Australia were to allow international travellers to enter without adequate quarantine facilities, rigorous testing and vaccine passports, this would inevitably seed new outbreaks and present an enormous gift to the racists. Just imagine the tropes about disease-bearing foreigners Pauline Hanson could resurrect. Does anyone think that British or American travellers carrying the coronavirus would be stigmatised as much as those from India or Asia?

And anyway, if we have to live with repeated new outbreaks, precisely which communities will be hardest hit? It won’t be wealthy, white ones.

Yes, we should consider the long-term cultural and political implications of border closures. But to elevate this consideration over all others in the name of multiculturalism or anti-racism is blinkered.

A similar set of considerations apply to criticising authoritarian, anti-working class or racist restrictions. When Daniel Andrews locked down nine public housing towers in Melbourne last year, the Victorian Left had no trouble condemning the move while upholding the necessity of other restrictions. By the same token, the NSW Left should criticise the militarised response and over-policing of poorer and predominantly migrant localities.

Yet the way we criticise these measures matters. The problem with NSW’s over-reliance on coercion is that it undermines the social solidarity necessary for a successful lockdown. Over-policing fails to address the underlying economic and cultural reasons why some people break regulations. As John Quiggin recently explained in the Monthly, these failings are the direct consequence of decades of marketization and neoliberal cuts and that have reduced the Commonwealth Government’s capacity to manage crises.

Should we jump from these appropriate criticisms to opposing all policing? Clearly, stronger non-coercive measures that build social solidarity are necessary, including income support and an expansion of health and welfare services. At the same time, it’s simply inconceivable that we could maintain lockdowns without coercive measures, primarily fines and criminal charges.

The other problem with a blanket opposition to police authority—or any authority for that matter—is that it dulls our criticism of disproportionate or egregious authoritarianism. The problem with fines isn’t fines per se. It’s that the police don’t issue fines equally and fines don’t impact everyone equally. A North Shore or Toorak business owner can easily absorb a $5000 fine, if they are issued with one in the first place. A precarious worker breaching lockdown cannot.


Left-wing conspiracy theories

At their worst, some anti-lockdown progressives have taken up with a paranoid, conspiracy-theory approach that’s reminiscent of anti-vaxxers and right-wing conspiracists.

For instance, in response to a recent Jacobin article advocating for a hard lockdown in NSW, C-list Twitter celebrity leftist Aimee Terese tweeted: ‘This is imperialism’ and went on to explain that the article—and the Lockdown to Zero campaign that it supports—is part of an international plan to push the ‘DNC/Davos party line.’

‘You see why none of this is a joke?’, Terese continued, before identifying a sprawling alliance of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members, ‘middle class leftist activists’ and union thinktanks, cohered by ‘cultural, intellectual and activist ‘collaboration’ (infiltration/rewarding obedience).’

I work for Jacobin, so I can only assume my invitation to Davos was lost in the mail. For its part, the Lockdown to Zero campaign has a long list of signatories, including socialists, academics, health experts, trade unionists and the Balmain branch of the ALP. Clearly, the DSA’s imperialist tentacles spread deep and wide. Against such an overwhelming foe, what other course of action is there but to join?

Terese’s analysis is marginal and unhinged, but it illustrates an important point. Conspiracy theories, both right- and left-wing, meet psychological needs by projecting anxieties onto an imagined enemy in order to preserve a fantasy image of the world. The key difference is that the right wishes to preserve their fantasy world. Left-wing conspiracy theorists, by contrast, mobilise paranoia to dramatically simplify the barriers to achieving their fantasy world—and to bolster their own ‘one weird trick to end capitalism that the CIA doesn’t want you to know’ plan for the revolution.

This also reveals the individualism of conspiracy thinking. Conspiracy theorists’ imagined enemies are also usually responsible for all the idiosyncratic—and obviously psychological—grievances that afflict the theorist.


Reality matters

Against this kind of thing, the Left needs to cultivate a realistic assessment of social and political realities. In contrast to Soutphommasane and Stears’ hyperbolics, Waleed Aly strikes a far more grounded note in a recent contribution to the Monthly. He argues that Australian politics have remained remarkably stable, and

the pandemic has offered no such ideological rupture [as has occurred in the USA] … It’s a form of emergency politics. That’s a different thing. Emergency politics is the temporary suspension of political norms, not necessarily the lasting embrace of new ones. It is meant to facilitate a return to normal, at least in theory.

It’s a desire to defend an exploitative normality that is driving the Coalition’s sabotage of Australia’s pandemic response. By denying adequate income support during the current lockdowns, Morrison is gambling that desperation will eventually undermine restrictions and pressure state governments into lifting them early. The result will be what the Liberals always wanted: endemic Covid-19 and the normalisation of thousands of deaths.

Those on the Left who fight against this scenario are entirely correct to do so. Those few who have opposed restrictions and lockdowns on this or that spurious grounds have lined up on the wrong side.

For once, the majority of the Left has not lost its way. However, those on the Left who have elevated this or that sacred freedom over the health of the vast majority most certainly have. If there’s soul searching to be done, it’s the anti-lockdown Left that should be doing it.


Image by BP Miller

Daniel Lopez

Daniel Lopez is a casual lecturer in philosophy and a Commissioning Editor for Jacobin.

Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places.

If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate.

Related articles & Essays

Contribute to the conversation

  1. ‘the normalisation of thousands of deaths’ ?
    That’s ugly rhetoric Daniel.
    You’re barking up the wrong tree.
    First, identity your enemy.
    Then take appropriate action.

  2. This article would be more interesting if the author actually dealt with the arguments of the Australian left instead of random idiots on twitter like Aimee Terese or Glenn Greenwald on one hand, and centrist intellectuals like Stears on the other. The debates going on in the left in NSW right now are more nuanced than the author suggests; Solidarity’s positions on this are at the other end of the spectrum to the Lockdown to Zero people/Socialist Alternative, but everyone else is somewhere in between, trying to figure all this shit out as best we can.

    It’s unquestionable that the right to protest is being violated under the cover of lockdowns. Citing things like last year’s BLM rallies is irrelevant. The ground has changed with the current outbreak and round of lockdowns – just recently a perfectly COVID-safe car convoy led by UWU and AUWU members was hit with thousands of dollars worth of fines and the organisers harassed by the cops. If we get a popular “deus ex machina” like the BLM rallies last year, sure, we might get the confidence to start asserting our right to protest again, but right now, there’s nothing.

    The section on refugees particularly makes no sense. As far as I know, nobody is arguing that quarantine measures should be bypassed for refugees. Instead, people are very accurately pointing out that Australia’s planned refugee intake has plummeted, and its unlikely to pick back up again until restrictions are wound down, since there’s no will on the part of Labor or the Coalition to increase the intake and no means of forcing them to do so, now that protests have become non-existent. In addition, means of seeking asylum outside of the official channels have diminished entirely. The “plane people” Labor harps on about – those refugees who arrive in Australia on student, tourism, and other visas and then seek asylum once they arrive, as is their right – have nearly totally disappeared.

    Suppose people were arguing for quarantine measures to be bypassed for refugees, though – should we fight against this on the grounds that it would make it easier for Pauline Hanson? What? Is our aim here to defend the right to asylum and ensure the safety of refugees, or to make it easier on ourselves in terms of domestic politics?

    The Lockdown to Zero campaign might seem reasonable to Victorians, I’m not sure – but from my vantage point in Western Sydney where I am currently legally prohibited from leaving my house after 9PM, it’s just absurd. Demands for a “harder lockdown” are naturally going to fall on deaf ears, since nobody except some leftists would interpret “harder” to mean anything but more police authority, more fines, criminal charges, etc, instead of the increased financial support or workplace health and safety that needs to be implemented.

    The irony of the Lockdown to Zero campaign (a front of Socialist Alternative) is that it has no means of actually implementing its demands, since the idea of going out to protest or blockade for harder lockdowns is ruled out by definition. Instead, they’re left with petitions and Zoom forums that will naturally do nothing, as well as overall pointless debates in union meetings, student councils, etc that occur when Lockdown to Zero motions are raised.

    COVID-19 and the chaos it has brought are direct products of capitalism – production for profit over use, the petri dishes for new viruses that are created by industrial agriculture, the dependence of workers on bosses for survival, etc. Whether capitalism returns to some kind of normalcy through hard lockdowns bringing case numbers to nil, or through mass vaccination and then a BoJo “freedom day” (triggering the likely deaths of thousands) is almost beside the point. The world we’ll come back to is a capitalist world, with all the misery, mass deaths and future pandemics that entails.

    The means the ruling class are using to manage the pandemic – whether that means hard lockdowns or vaccination + no restrictions – are inhumane in every case. It’s silly for socialists to approach all this by picking a side among the ruling class. A “lesser evil” is still an evil, and we don’t have to support it. We don’t need to institute a “union sacrée” to stop COVID. What we need is the basic revolutionary socialist perspective: what can workers do right now to organise and fight against the system itself? Adopting that perspective means adopting all the standard revolutionary positions, including yes, opposition to the police as agents of the capitalist order. That doesn’t mean opposing any and every public health order enacted by state or federal governments, but it doesn’t mean demanding they institute a whole lot more of them either. The demands we make – more financial support, more workplace health and safety, rights for refugees, protesting, etc – should be things that help us in that ultimate goal of knocking over the whole system itself.

  3. The problem with making lockdowns the central element of a pandemic strategy is that lockdowns can be enforced only by the state – and as Daniel says, “it’s simply inconceivable that we could maintain lockdowns without coercive measures, primarily fines and criminal charges”.

    Who bears the brunt of those coercive measures? It is, of course, the poorest and most marginal of the working class: Indigenous people, the homeless, new migrants and those already struggling with mental distress or substance abuse. In Victoria last year, 5 per cent of COVID-related fines were given to Indigenous people, who make up less than 1 per cent of the state’s population. Some 4 per cent of the fines went to people born in Sudan or South Sudan – less than 0.05 per cent of the population.

    Lockdowns also mean the almost total abandonment of public protest and workers’ picket lines. It is sheer sophistry for Daniel to assert that the right to protest has not been lost because of isolated examples such as “Invasion Day rallies, protests in solidarity with Palestine and smaller actions supporting refugees”. In Melbourne, almost all those rallies took place between lockdowns. The one major exception, the Black Lives Matter rally, went ahead during lockdown because it was enormous – beyond the capability of police to repress – and early enough into the pandemic that people hadn’t lost the reflex to take to the streets. This is sadly an exception, not the rule.

    Daniel seems to approach public protest as an optional extra, something that can be ceded because the alternative is apparently death (never mind that not one COVID case has been attributed to outdoor protest anywhere in the country over the past 19 months). But protest is not a luxury for refugees in the MITA detention centre in the Melbourne suburb of Broadmeadows, where at least one guard was this weekend reported to have COVID. If not for “coercive measures, primarily fines and criminal charges” refugee supporters would be at the gates right now demanding that all refugees and asylum-seekers are released into the safety of the community. Those refugees are in greater danger because we cannot protest publicly for their freedom.

    Protest and industrial action are not luxuries for workers lacking PPE or the right to leave unsafe workplaces. When a worker at Coles’ distribution centre at Eastern Creek in Sydney tested positive to COVID, workers had to stop work to force the company to implement proper safety measures. The United Workers Union says about a dozen sites it covers have had to take action since the start of pandemic over basic issues like this. Should workers abandon such actions in the name of COVID zero? Surely now is the time to fight harder for paid testing leave and paid vaccination leave for all, including casuals, and for a minimum $80 a day for those relying on benefits.

    I endorse most of what Dan from Bankstown said in his response. Just one minor quibble – Solidarity (of which I’m a member) is not “at the other end of the spectrum to the Lockdown to Zero people/Socialist Alternative”. That disgrace belongs to big business, the NSW state government and, of course, Morrison, who want to reopen as soon as possible to boost profits, regardless of the human cost.

    Solidarity is arguing that the fact it is no longer possible to completely suppress the Delta variant (unless Daniel fancies nailing people’s doors shut in Wuhan-style) makes vaccination of central importance – “vaccination levels need to get as high as possible, well past 80 per cent of the population”. The race to vaccinate should have started six months ago – a major reason it did not is that harsh border controls made Morrison complacent, a complacency that Daniel seems to share.

    Does any of this mean we should abandon lockdowns immediately? Unfortunately, not. Lockdowns have become necessary because decades of neoliberal decline mean that public health systems are incapable of dealing with a sustained pandemic challenge (gold standard, anybody?). They are a sign of system failure. The metaphor that springs to mind is a patient with a badly infected limb. Amputation will, of course, prevent the spread of the infection – but antibiotics would save the patient’s life and their limb. Lockdowns are amputations; rather we need a massive shift of resources to working class people to enable them to isolate without financial penalty and to find health care when they need it, we need mass (90 per cent-plus) vaccination rates, and we need the right to strike for safe workplaces when we cannot work from home.

    Daniel, the right to protest and strike is not a threat – it is how workers and the oppressed fight for life.

    1. 1. Workers could easily go on strike despite not being able to gather on the streets. As well, like with BLM, sizable workplaces and trade unions could mobilise rallies large enough to defy the lockdowns (which the left would support), if they wanted to fight for something important.

      2. I haven’t noticed all these strikes and progressive protests in the US, France or the UK, where the state has been happy to let the virus rip.

      3. I have noticed a lot of dead people in those countries though.

      4. (This is the clincher) It’s funny that David is so desperate to give us back the right to protest by infecting thousands with a deadly disease. Not sure if he’s noticed, but the bourgeoisie are desperate to give us back that right too. Hence the reckless reopening plans.

  4. Supporting elimination rather than deliberately infecting people as the balance stands currently should be a no brainer for true leftists.

  5. I worry about using New Zealand as an example.

    They locked down extraordinarily hard with just 1 Delta case almost a month ago and Auckland is still in lockdown to this point. In addition, their entire country has a population smaller than metro Melbourne with far less density to boot.

    If we were to take their elimination strategy and apply it to NSW right now, I’m not sure it would work even if followed perfectly for an indefinite amount of time. Of course, I can’t imagine it would be followed perfectly even with every suggested government intervention and I would guess that the vast majoirty of the population won’t committ to the huge amount of time, maybe even a year+, of this kind of lockdown to eliminate it in NSW and there would be a sevre reaction politically. All of this applies to Victoria with smaller case numbers but greater lockdown fatigue.

    Tldr; I don’t think the NZ strategy is realistic.

    1. Auckland is still in lockdown and is down to 20 cases a day, well on its way to eliminating the virus again. I don’t understand what you consider to be unrealistic about the example.

  6. ofc we can’t ease restrictions before its safe, ofc we will have to live with lockdowns, but covid is here to stay, so to assert you have a right to be free of it, when the entire rest of the world is living and dying with it, smacks to me of privilege. if we really want to save lives we should be doing the best we can to help countries in our region who aren’t as well off as we are. not chasing an impossible goal of covid zero.

    1. agree, nothing here suggests we couldn’t prioritise the realistic goal of effective suppression without pinning ourselves to elimination except the idea that some of us are anti-lockdown. actually most of the left isn’t, but most of us don’t believe elimination is possible either. these lockdowns will end but we need to fight to make sure they end when it’s safest to do so, otherwise we throw our lot in with a campaign that has already lost (lockdown to zero) when state governments start lifting restrictions anyway at their 70-80% targets, because we haven’t challenged them on ensuring those targets are uniform across communities and regions and fighting for proper income support now and after those restrictions are inevitably lifted

  7. If you’re willing to cede freedom of movement – and endorse a national elimination goal that can ultimately only be enforced by a more militarised border and more police powers – then I don’t really trust your political instincts. And you’re likely to find yourself caught in the same nationalist trap over and over again for the rest of the climate crisis.

  8. All this “we should do elimination” stuff reminds me of the old joke about economists with the punchline ‘assume a can opener.’ There’s a deliberate refusal to think about (a) whether is elimination possible at all in Australia (for every 5-million-population-total-NZ you give me, I can give you a Vietnam or a Taiwan) and (b) the fact that even trying to do it involves actively cheering while the state gives itself even more social license to detain and surveil ordinary citizens (but I’m sure THIS time the cops will be responsible about it!). And that’s not even mentioning that we have adopted a position on border closures that makes even 2019 Australia seem generous! “Leftists for zero immigration” looks great on a badge I’m sure.

  9. Endemic COVID-19 is the only possible outcome and suggesting otherwise is just plain unscientific and frankly makes this whole argument a non-starter. Everyone has a date with this virus.

  10. I wonder if the author might care to pause to consider whether his bad-faith, straw-man dismissals of left critiques of elimination undermines the capacity of this article to engender any sort of solidarity, or to win others on ‘the left’ to his cause.

  11. It’s funny hearing middle class people profess their concern for working class people’s jobs and justify this as a reason to end lockdowns, alongside their own naked desire to travel overseas…

    But it’s a furphy. All over the world, Covid is a disease of the working classes. Anything that can be done to reduce its spread until high vaccination rates actually helps the working class!

  12. I’m just glad left lockdown love wasn’t around as we grappled with the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the 1980s. Voices calling for harsh law and order measures were marginalised then, in favour of empowering those affected to lead safety campaigns and support each other. The notion that health problems need health responses, rather than police ones, really shouldn’t be that hard for leftists to grasp.

  13. We have been waiting a long time for a working class revolt. Well, keep this lockdown going for another 6 months to get back to covid zero. Then return to the system of rolling lockdowns. Then we’ll have our working class revolt. Unfortunately it’s going to be for the wrong side.

    I am pro lockdown by the way. But we can’t keep doing it forever.

    1. “but we can’t keep doing this forever”. Who on earth is talking about doing it forever? we are in a middle of a fucking pandemic you twat. This is not forever.

      1. No need to to resort to insults over a simple turn of phrase. My point is that lockdowns untill the pandemic is over can’t be the solution. This could go on for years. Kids have to go back to school at some point. Young adults to university. People need to be able to protest (for legitimate causes I’m not talking about anti-maskers). Hospitality needs to be resurrected.

        The 80 percent vaccination might work. But it might not (I’m pro vax). But we’re in uncharted territory. Who the hell knows whats going to happen. Delta was a kick in the guts and it might happen again.

        As I said I’m pro lockdown. But I dont think people could cop another year of rolling lockdowns if that’s what it came to.

  14. Forever is a long time, but for the continuing present, 1480 new cases today and 9 deaths in NSW, yet an air of buoyancy in the tally room, which would be farcical if not sad and soulless.

  15. This is hysterically funny!

    Blaming the left?

    The right wing muppets causing all this shit with anti vaccination and protests.

    Typical right wing gaslighting!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *