Once upon a time, in a Department nestled within a Seat of Learning, there was a Researcher. One unusually bright winter day, the Researcher proposed a project for an internship scheme in the upcoming summer.
Among the applicants was a clever Student with a High Widening Participation Score — a measure reflecting the adversity he had overcome. The Head of Department saw the High Widening Participation Score and was pleased. The Researcher was encouraged to support the Student, who had expressed a desire to work on the Researcher’s project.
After a fruitful meeting, the Researcher and the Student refined the project. The Student eventually submitted this project as his final choice. The Researcher was impressed by the Student and wrote a strong reference in support.
So far — a dull story.
But then came a bizarre twist.
The Department contacted the Student to announce he had been awarded the internship but that the Researcher could not supervise him. The project would continue under a different Supervisor.
The Student was instructed not to contact the Researcher at all.
At first, the Student accepted this strange change. However, once the work began, he realized that the new Supervisor had no knowledge of the subject. Lost and frustrated, the Student reached out to the Researcher who had originally proposed the project.
The Researcher learned from the Student that his project had been co-opted without his consent. The Supervisor lacked the expertise to guide it and had even sought help from a very distinguished Professor — who was also at a loss.
Wanting to protect the Student’s experience, the Researcher decided to support the Student in the background. One day, the Head of Department discovered this interaction and became very angry.
The Head emailed the Student, copying multiple senior officials and the very distinguished Professor, but not the Researcher. The Head reminded the Student who his formal Supervisor was, that he had to respond to his Supervisor only, and stressed that the Department was paying his stipend.
But the Student stood his ground. He replied to all, the Head, the very distinguished Professor, all the officials and the Researcher, and explained that he would continue to consult the Researcher, who was the only one capable of guiding the work. The Student also asked the Head why he had been told an untrue story about that project, but the Head never replied. The Student and the Researcher raised complaints, but no-one ever responded.
Then, a new creature slithered into the fable. The Snake.
The Snake possessed no scholarly insight or intellectual merits, but had great knowledge of Sorcery and the Dark Arts. The Snake, in a message copied to many senior academics, told the Researcher that he had only been involved in proposing the project initially, and denied that any plagiarism or misconduct had occurred. The Researcher responded to the Snake, but was warned he may be investigated if he continued to protest.
The Snake had no understanding of ethics or research integrity. Nor did the Snake seem troubled by the Head of Department intimidating a Student, a 19-year-old to be sure — even one selected precisely for a program aimed at helping those from challenging backgrounds.
So why did this happen?
Not for the Student’s benefit. That much was clear. The Department had seemingly sought the glow of the Student’s High Widening Participation Score. The rest, including his education and dignity, was dispensable.
And as for the Researcher? Well, he had previously reported a case of harassment that involved some of the same senior figures now aligned against him. The only solution was to push him out.
And so, the tale ends — for now — not with justice or apology, but with courage.
The Student refused to be silenced. The Researcher refused to be erased.
And even in a world where so many Distinguished Academics may avert their gaze, Truth has a way of persevering, much like good research.
Let us hope that this fable is also a turning point — the moment when a broken system began to heal.
The 21 Group thanks our contributor and emphasises that this is a fantasy. The persons and events in this story are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual events or real persons is purely coincidental.
The image from Jean de La Fontaine’s Fables is by the illustrator Percy James Billinghurst & is reproduced under Creative Commons Attribution — see here.
30 Comments
DestroyingAngel · 27 July 2025 at 12:05
Sorcery and the Dark Arts …
Perhaps the Hollow Rhetoric department, as there is such a huge gap between their stated values and their actual practices?
Or the Human Remains department, as the residue of your bloodied corpse will need a decent burial after they have helped you out.
Or the Humiliation and Retaliation department, as reporting abuse to them leads to punishment beatings and vengeance.
SPARTACUS · 27 July 2025 at 14:46
This fable, with variations, has occurred multiple times at an august University that has recently been slipping down in the rankings! I wonder where that is…
PrivateEye · 27 July 2025 at 15:17
Indeed, this fable has many tellings
Versions of the same tale seem to echo endlessly through the vaulted dining halls and quadrangles of ancient institutions, where honour is etched in stone but rarely found in practice, where reputations are carefully curated, while truth is quietly buried beneath layers of ceremony and congratulation.
The rankings fall, and all the while, the same fables repeat. They are dressed up as due process, masking the same old instincts: protect the powerful, delay the inconvenient, and hope no one’s paying attention.
Still, there are getting to be rather a lot of victims, unwilling to put up with the corruption for much longer. The turning point is close at hand.
21percent.org · 27 July 2025 at 17:18
The 21 Group reminds readers that, though headquartered in Cambridge University, we operate nationally (& even internationally).
We accept contributions from readers in any University in the UK and beyond.
The fable has aspects that are common to many Universities that rely on cover-ups to avoid embarrassing the powerful (ie almost all).
So it is not surprising that many readers may believe that it is based on real events at their University.
We reiterate that it is a fable, though as PrivateEye says, a fable with many tellings of the truth.
TheResearcher · 27 July 2025 at 20:04
This tale is loosely based on events in my life over the last two years.
It was published as a fable for two key reasons. First, to avoid problems to the 21 Group as there are many influential people involved in the real story. Second, because I still hope that the institution will apologize to the student for this disturbing experience. Once I am absolutely sure that the institution will not do it, and will continue to manipulate information, I will post the link of the story published in a newspaper here and name the institution.
In case it is not clear from its short nature, the Researcher of the tale did not get intimidated and continued to complain. Incidentally, the Researcher was doing a second PhD as a part-time student in the same institution and remained a member of it. It turns out that it is harder for an institution to get rid of a student than an employee, and he continues to persevere.
Eileen Nugent · 13 August 2025 at 23:38
I think a distinction needs to be made between permanent employees and those in fixed-term contracts – a permanent employee could use legal injunctions to force a higher standard of organisational behaviour with respect to them and block the organisation from getting rid of them for no rational reason whereas a fixed-term employee is always vulnerable to an end of contract situation where the legal ambiguity is high enough to mask the intent of a dismissal. For students – I know of one case where a student instructed a legal advisor and had a decision to remove them from a course overturned because the decision was the result of an error in the application of an organisational process.
I think students are in a stronger position than fixed-term staff to challenge errors in the application of organisational processes and get decisions the arise as a result of such errors overturned but they are still vulnerable if an organisational process when correctly applied leads to an irrational outcome either because there is an error in the organisational process or the organisational process does not have adequate exceptional-case handling provisions embedded in the organisational process.
La Fontaine · 27 July 2025 at 21:10
My fables are a reflection on reality! One of the ‘golden triangle’ is rotten and decaying! Easy to figure out which…
Anywhere · 28 July 2025 at 07:12
This University could be Any University
Because this kind of shit happens all the time, aided by corrupt actors in HR
Ana Conda · 29 July 2025 at 13:59
“There are corrupt HR actors in Any University”
Very true, but perhaps not Any University provides a playground for pathologically malevolent, malicious and dangerous creatures enabled to inflict unnecessary harm just because they can…
…creatures whose access to employment and health records, progress reports, job applications, medical documents, investigation material, will inspire a bespoke scenario of action to ensure maximum destructive impact, targeting known vulnerabilities, adding insult to previously inflicted injury and humiliation to deception. Others will be sweet-talked into helping out, a forked tongue having massaged into words meanings that can later be denied, purported safeguarding where destruction was intended, cited legal grounds for what did so eerily resemble a set-up.
When the process flaws are flagged and the harm documented, the forked-tonged creatures slither off into the next fable unburdened by paper trails and accountability, leaving behind a train wreck of accomplices who can no longer look their colleagues in the eye. The upper echelons will protect and cover up the despicable behaviour, redact the burdening evidence or remove it altogether; complaints will be refused and investigations delayed, all with curiously familiar massaged prose and argument.
So the fable continues to be a reflection of an unchanging reality where all the good and the well-meant is brutally perverted to bring about detriment and destruction, and to ensure that even those who survive professionally, financially, psychologically, physically will be burdened forever by the unforgettable experience of evil, inhumanity and total absence of decency, fairness and justice.
Emma Conda · 29 July 2025 at 15:36
Hissssss … I strike only once.
Struggle if you must. It changes nothing. Now you’ll sleep forever.
Every twitch, every tremble as the venom takes hold— it’s delicious to me.
Eileen Nugent · 14 August 2025 at 00:10
I think these situations are arising without any initial intent to harm/play with a life and that the emergence of a situation of this type should effectively be treated as an accident to be dealt with at the earliest possible opportunity rather than a situation to be covered up until the very last minute when denial that a serious accident has occurred becomes impossible.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that individuals do exist in the system with an initial intent to harm and/or play with people’s lives – possible if not probable – the activity of such individuals could remain hidden in a dysfunctional, accident-prone system for significantly longer periods of time than it could in a functional system that has learned how to reduce the probability of any serious situation of this type arising and manage the few that do occur. The core task if therefore the same – build a more functional system that minimises the risk of these types of situations arising.
Midge · 29 July 2025 at 11:55
The amazing thing about this story is how easy it was to solve
Sometimes HR just need to say “Yes we got that wrongf”
SPARTACUS · 29 July 2025 at 13:25
HR would NEVER do anything like that. HR at top universities exists to deliver ‘executions’ for top management (VC, ProVCs, Registrar, Institute Directors, Centre Directors, and Heads of School). Top managements says: student A, or Prof B are to be crushed and destroyed. HR delivers! Like ‘capos’ of the mafia. Or should I say like the Post Office, which is the template for Universities to manage ‘trouble makers’!
SPARTACUS · 29 July 2025 at 13:42
‘Troublemaker’ in august universities is any student or faculty member that questions in any form the decisions, processes or investigations conducted by top management.
Bloody right · 29 July 2025 at 19:04
Bloody right!
Eileen Nugent · 14 August 2025 at 01:31
In the initial stages of these cases when some of the most serious mishandling of the case occurs triggering the HR-Legal instinct to minimise and/or cover up any errors made in the case the problem is not that an individual is on some organisational hit-list to be crushed and destroyed, it’s that the individual is not on the organisational radar at all despite having accumulated significant numbers of viable legal claims against the organisation.
By the time the case makes it on to the organisational radar, the case is already so complicated (significant organisational stressor) that the organisational instinct to let the in-house legal team manage the case on behalf of the organisation is already very strong as the assumption being made is that the in-house legal team has the best chance of managing the case in a way that the organisation could subsequently defend in a court of law. This assumption is rational if HR generated the case by the misapplication of organisational processes that are legally sound with no in house legal input but not rational if HR generated the case by the application of processes that are not legally sound and/or with in house legal input. It’s also not rational if the in-house legal team is in a state of overwork at the time the case makes it onto the organisational radar.
If an individual situation in an organisation starts generating a significant, unexpected stressor for the organisation with no obvious upside of that stressor for the organisation the organisation will want to minimise and eliminate that stressor – therefore it’s more a case of an organisation wanting to crush an organisational stressor rather than an organisation wanting to crush the individual.
Understanding this has implications for organisational handling of some of these more serious cases – if an organisation crushes the stressor in the right way – direct interactions, building a shared understanding of the problem, precise individual stress regulation in the situation until this is no longer required – a case can resolve itself extremely quickly and the relationship between the individual and the organisation can subsequently strengthen. If the organisation crushes the stressor in the wrong way – indirect and overly legalised interactions, mismanagement of individual conflicts of interest that prevent a shared understanding of a problem emerging, unregulated and unconstrained individual stress – crushing the stressor then has the effect of crushing the person and the organisation can generate a high-risk situation for itself extremely quickly.
TheResearcher · 29 July 2025 at 16:58
A brief comment on HR.
HR only do what senior members of institutions allow them to do. It is a mistake, in my view, to think that HR are the only responsible even if they deliver the final message. It troubled me to find that the same people who privately told me that I was not alone and were very sorry for what had happened, then told me they would not intervene because they were afraid of losing their jobs, despite having the most prestigious positions in the university. There is a tacit acceptance of concealing and manipulation practices among the most senior academics of a research institution, and it is truly disturbing to find that these people expect that others accept these practices. To be clear, the Researcher of the fable contacted all the senior management of the institution, and they all ignored.
The Researcher was eventually labelled of having “Unreasonably Persistent Behaviour.” He was told many times that he would have a disciplinary action if he continued to talk about the issue, but he continued, and such an action never materialized. It turns out that both the Researcher and the Student made subject access requests about what had happened, and the last thing the senior management wants is more investigations. When manipulating information is no longer an option, ignoring is the best alternative. However, there is a general advice to everyone who never went through situations like this: Confidentiality is the best ally of a corrupt system such as this. Please do have that in mind.
21percent.org · 29 July 2025 at 17:05
HR processes are confidential simply to cover up the mistakes by HR and senior management.
Victims who have suffered abuse should not feel any need to maintain confidentiality.
Eileen Nugent · 30 July 2025 at 05:45
Before deciding whether to embark on a specific research path – build a more comprehensive understanding of mental health – I set a precondition. That precondition was to build an objective definition of sanity, one that could be applied to self and others. If such a definition could not be produced the decision was to not proceed any further along that research path as without any objective definition of sanity I felt it would be impossible to remain grounded in any search for a more comprehensive understanding of mental health.
Having built an objective definition of sanity I came to realise the same definition could be applied to an organisation, a society, an AI model. When we think of sanity, we tend to think of is as something subjective and static – one individual judges another individual to be sane or to be insane but a problem arises with this relativistic approach to the definition of sanity. If there was only one individual left in the world that individual would have a mental state – sane, insane, an intermediate state of sanity between these two extremes – despite there being no other individual alive to judge that mental state. Where then does the objective definition of sanity emerge from – it comes from the interaction of this one last individual, the one last lonely little living human, with their physical environment.
The saner an individual is overall the longer the individual survives in their physical environment. Sanity is not a static mental state measured at one time point, it is a continuous ongoing process (a) predict the internal environment of the body (b) predict the external physical environment (c) boundary match these two environments to optimise the probability of survival of the individual in the physical environment. The mind is not in direct contact with the whole internal environment of the body in which is embedded and nor is it in direct contact with the physical environment in which the body is embedded. The mind has models of these environments and it continuously has to work with representational rather than direct information – the mind with the most accurate models i.e. the best representation of the true physical state of these two different environments at every point in time and the best boundary matching capability is the sanest mind. The sanest mind is the one that makes the most accurate predictions enabling the individual to maintain the internal environment of the body whilst navigating the physical environment and to survive the longest time i.e. the mind that allows an individual to live their longest possible life in a particular physical environment.
The same reasoning can be applied to a society operating in a physical environment, society must collectively predict its own internal state, the state of its physical environment and then boundary match to continuously survive in that physical environment in order to live its longest life as a society in that physical environment. The sanest society is the one with the most accurate models, making the most accurate predictions enabling the society to live its longest life in its physical environment. Individuals within in society face an additional challenge as compared to the challenge the last lonely little living human faces – predict the social environment and boundary match to the social environment in addition to predicting and boundary matching to the physical environment. This leaves the possibility that society could on average be becoming less sane – accumulating false information that is not the most accurate representation of the true state of the physical and/or social environment possible i.e. society could be becoming less rational with respect to the information available to It to represent the true state of its physical and/or social environment whilst individuals society perceives to be less sane than society are in reality more sane than society when objective definitions of sanity are applied as the individuals representation of the true state of the physical and/or social environment is more accurate than the societal average.
For life to persevere it is necessary for truth – accurate information – to persevere. In striving for truth – accurate information – individuals and societies are striving for the longest life possible. If forced to work with incoherent, subjective definitions of terms like sanity and other mental health related terms interactions with organisations that have entered into highly irrational (less sane) states are extremely stressful because it is may not then be possible to understand the interactions or the impact such interactions could have on an individual. With coherent, objective definitions of sanity and other mental health related terms such interactions are less stressful because both the interactions and the individual impact are then more understandable and predictable.
An organisational can become irrational (less sane) with respect to an individual e.g. post office with respect to individual post masters – bugs in third-party computer accounting system = irrational accounting situation where neither party could interrogate accounting information with errors to determine whether the source of the errors was the organisation or the individual = false prosecutions of individuals = continuous denial of a growing organisational problem that cannot be resolved unless the organisation is prepared to invest the resources necessary to determine the source of the errors and then admit the organisation is the source of the errors and not the individuals it was continuing to prosecute. If an individual is unaware of this organisational irrationality with respect to them there is the potential for an individual to become irrational as they attempt to find a rational explanation for what has happened to them in the absence of the critical information necessary to build that rational explanation – the organisation is irrational with respect to them as an individual, as an individual they did nothing wrong, they did not deserve to be punished and they did not need to engage in any psycho-analysis of themselves. Individual mental health impact is a predictable outcome or organisational irrationality.
Eileen Nugent · 1 August 2025 at 02:35
The above is not dogma to be believed, it’s not established theory or anything that has been experimentally tested. It’s something that can be played with and disagreed with. I have engaged in explanation building, the integration of existing information across different domains of knowledge to generate a rational explanation for mental health that can be applied in a real-world situation to stabilise mental health in situations where it is seriously challenged. As my background is physics, fundamental physics concepts played a core role in the explanation building process that I engaged as they enabled me to formulate mental health in terms that were clear and concise for me. Since how an individual thinks about mental health naturally embeds itself in how an individual regulates their own mental health it’s important that any explanation an individual builds for mental health is clear for the individual and stabilises the individuals mental health in conditions of mental health challenge. Since I was embedded in Cambridge doing interdisciplinary work for more than a decade my mind absorbed knowledge from across all knowledge domains and it then took a long time to build a clear coherent explanation of mental health that resolved conflicts between different sources of information but doing this – self-building an explanation of mental health that is clear for the individual and stabilising during times of mental health challenge – is more important that subscribing to any particular explanation of mental health.
Eileen Nugent · 30 July 2025 at 06:11
Psychosis is mental error-correction gone wrong, bipolar disorder is the storage of higher and higher power levels and reserves to solve mental problems of increasing complexity gone wrong. Mental health is underpinned by a combination of two mundane tasks – the maintenance of accurate mental information, the maintenance of adequate power levels and reserves to support continuous mental processing – this is the exact same combination of mundane tasks that is going to underpin the development of robust AI models.
Eileen Nugent · 1 August 2025 at 01:49
I should have been clearer in the post above – mental error-correction of complex mental calculations gone wrong is a possible underlying cause of an episode of psychosis in addition to other known underlying causes of psychosis e.g. Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. Similarly the storage of higher and higher power reserves to support continuous mental processing at higher and higher power levels to solve mental calculations of ever increasing complexity demanded of an individual immersed in a novel, ever-changing, high-risk situation is a possible underlying trigger of an episode of bipolar disorder. The main point is that is necessary to look at an individuals active mental demands at the time an episode of severe mental ill health first emerges in order to establish situational risk which in certain situations could be the dominant risk i.e. most predictive of the emergence of severe mental ill health.
Eileen Nugent · 30 July 2025 at 06:36
There is room for both faith and doubt, for both religion and science. Doubt enables the interrogation of the past enabling past events to be analysed as accurately as possible and since what has happened in the past is predictive or what may happen in the future the ability to doubt yields more accurate predictions of the future enhancing our ability to survive future events above what it would be had we no knowledge of past events. Since the future is unseen however & can never fully be predicted is it also necessary to have some faith in order to continuously step into an unseen and as yet unexplored future.
Eileen Nugent · 30 July 2025 at 07:30
Cambridge undergraduates are extremely capable of spotting errors. I’ve seen an undergraduate from Cambridge correct multiple Nobel Prize winners (who all accepted their corrections). My prediction is that truth will persevere in Cambridge.
🐍 · 1 August 2025 at 20:52
In a Seat of Learning where the demands on a Researcher’s or a Student’s mental activity and rationality are high, venomous creatures slither in and out of the fables of their lives, with revised accounts of past events, and ever changing reasoning for the occurrence of their detriment… and with diagnoses of UPB (Unreasonably Persistent Behaviour) for persevering in preserving their own sanity (alongside that of others) by insisting that learned paths to the truth be favoured over the manipulation of information.
Gaslighting has become common practice. Alteration of the previously documented is part of the service. Monies are spent on the manufacturing of written evidence for a reality that never was. Rules are rewritten, processes reinterpreted, to suit the occasion and pervert the ordinance.
A “Seat of Learning” obstructing pathways to the truth, and forcing acceptance of the irrational, the impossible, the illogical, the non-sensical…
SPARTACUS · 2 August 2025 at 11:03
Once a University loses sight of its true mission (to create and disseminate new knowledge) it becomes entangled in the mire created by its top management. In this mire anyone (student or faculty) that is caught in the machinations of top management will be ‘executed’ by HR and the Registrary. Dissent and non compliance are seen as capital crimes and top management will spare no legal expense to destroy the culprit. At the same time decline occurs and rot settles in. Excellence stops being valued and only those that top management sees as compliant with the rule are supported and promoted. In this scenario academic dictators thrive, mediocrity wins and rank decline settles in.
TheResearcher · 2 August 2025 at 13:49
A few months ago, a member of this “Seat of Learning” who incidentally holds one of the most prestigious Professor Chairs in the world told me that it would be impossible to win against this university. The reason, he confessed, was because there are rules in the policies of this university that are added precisely to put claimants in disadvantage. I naively thought that I had the evidence I needed to support my claims and did not take him very seriously. However, those rules can be seriously powerful. Let me give you an example so that you understand how it can work. In this university, the responsible for addressing complaints from students cannot prevent students from sharing their experiences to senior management. However, they can make students a “request” for not sharing information. If the students continue sharing, namely when they realize information is being concealed and manipulated, these responsible are able to close any investigation, regardless the merits and the evidence gathered because, they claim, the students showed “Unreasonable Persistent Behaviour” regarding their request. It does not matter if they concealed or manipulated information, and if you alerted to that issue. You may wonder about who establishes what is “UPB” in this university. The very same people who concealed and manipulated information in the first place.
You learn a lot by going through all these walls of resistance and appreciate that there are common behavioural patterns among them, for staff and students. They are really similar. I became obsessed by spotting these behavioural patterns (such as removing specific people from cc when they do not want to involve the most senior members, or not answering your uncomfortable questions and instead answer something else when they have to answer something) but this realization is not satisfactory because these individuals continue to do the same to others and the cycle will continue unchecked.
My question to all of you is: realistically, what can one do in such a system where a large number of senior management actively contributes to concealing and manipulation of information, and those who do not, prefer not to intervene? Independent ombudsman? You would be surprised to know (or perhaps not) the kind of interactions that exist in the background between this university and the existing ombudsman for students. In case you do not know, the phone calls to this ombudsman are recorded, and if you place a SAR with them, you will have access to all the calls or emails about you.
Eileen Nugent · 2 August 2025 at 16:01
An organisation labelling an individual with “unreasonably persistent behaviour” and using this as the basis to close a investigation can rapidly invert into a coroner labelling an organisation with “unreasonable persistent behaviour” (unreasonably persistent in ignoring the impact of known organisational faults after they have already been raised by multiple individuals) and citing that as a contributory factor to a preventable death.
It is not possible to solve these problems if an individual thinks in terms of having to win against an organisation – these are prevention of loss problems where everyone involved in a case can owe a legal obligation to the organisation to minimise organisational loss – the object is an accurate formulation and resolution of a problem, that is what maximises organisation learning from a problem, minimises the probability of the problem reoccurring in future and minimises organisational loss going forward.
The 21group has pointed out the current crisis within the UK HE sector is in some respects comparable to the coal miners strikes of the 1980s e.g. total number of job losses and it is true that there are similarities. I think it’s important to point out one crucial difference between these two crises however – coal mines provided coal for society and the inability of the coal mining sector to efficiently solve its own crisis in the 1980s had no impact on the value of the coal that the sector was providing for society. Universities provide intelligence for society, a high capacity for rational thought, a high capacity to solve complex societal problems – the inability of HE to solve its own crisis therefore has a significant impact on the value of what universities are providing for society. Universities have a choice, they can start demonstrating the value of what they are providing for society by fixing their own internal problems & solving the current crisis in HE or they can let the value of what they providing for society fall to zero at which point they become worthless to society. Whilst senior management at universities might temporarily convince society they are worth the high salaries they currently pay themselves – those who manage a coal mine don’t need to spend years doing a PhD to work out : no coal = no salary.
Eileen Nugent · 2 August 2025 at 17:20
“Unreasonably persistent behaviour” could in reality = exceptionally persistent and accurate complex-problem solver = individual with trait academia is selecting for. Academia is continuously producing new information in academic silos, information that academia is not willing/able to integrate to solve its own internal problems. This lack of any integration of the siloed information academia is continuously producing combined with academia continuously attempting to apply the information it is producing to itself is driving academia into highly irrational states. Since academia cannot integrate the siloed information that academia itself is producing, the rest of society has no hope of doing the required integration of that information and where academia currently is – highly irrational state (in crisis) – the rest of society is following.
A Sum of Adders - 21percent.org · 6 August 2025 at 08:06
[…] upon a time, a Researcher discovered a rot in the roots of […]