“As somebody who escaped Lebanon and actually hid under desks to avoid death squads, I don’t take well to these idiots from Wellesley College who say, ‘I’m scared to go and buy my hamburgers now that Trump won,’ because it trivializes what true trauma is.” — Gad Saad

Gad Saad (@GadSaad) is an outspoken social critic of the lunacies found in the extremes of both political sides. A controversial figure to some, his family fled the Lebanese civil war under threat of persecution for their Jewish religious heritage. He’s a Professor of Marketing and holder of the Concordia University Research Chair in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Darwinian Consumption. Dr. Saad hosts a popular YouTube show called The Saad Truthand has appeared on shows such as The Rubin Report, The Joe Rogan Experience, and the Adam Carolla Show. He writes a column for Psychology Today titled Homo Consumericus.

I spoke to him about the hysteria around a Donald Trump presidency, speaking out as an academic, and the field of evolutionary psychology and its detractors. The following is our conversation transcribed and edited for clarity.

[An audio version of this interview is above, courtesy of Gad Saad]

Malhar Mali: There seems to be an extreme strain of thought held by some that Trump’s inauguration will signal the apocalypse and return of the third-reich, that people of color will be rounded up, women will be sexually assaulted en-masse, and LGBTQ citizens will be executed on sight. What are your thoughts on that?

Gad Saad: Early last year I introduced a theory to explain the mass hysteria associated with social justice warriors. I called it “collective Munchausen” syndrome. Munchausen disorder is when somebody feigns a medical illness or injury to garner sympathy and empathy. Munchausen syndrome by proxy is when you have somebody under your care — say your child — and you harm that third party to garner sympathy. “Look, my child is hurt!” So it’s a really morbid, grotesque psychological desire to draw attention to yourself because you enjoy the sympathy you receive.

I took this psychiatric disorder that I’d written about in a medical journal and then I argued that the manner in which social justice warriors respond is really a manifestation of collective Munchausen. It’s more than just mass hysteria — which is a known psychological mechanism. It has a specific goal which is to turn the attention inward to: “Oh my god, we’re such victims.” So the faux-fear we’re seeing now with all of these, for lack of a better term, schmucks is a form of collective Munchausen. It’s: “Oh my god, we’re going to be gang-raped, the third-reich is coming for us.” I put up a satirical video where I reported that the inauguration death patrols were coming for me whilst hiding under the table in my study.

The naturally lobotomized individuals do not understand the gist of my position: I do this not because it’s not reasonable to have concerns about anything Trump may or not do. I could say, “I really dislike his education cabinet for the following reasons.” And that’s reasonable. Any candidate you bring before me, I would have agreements and disagreements with.

The problem arises when you have a discourse fully detached from reality. It’s beyond satirical and grotesque in how much stupidity is exhibited. A typical comment on my social feed might state something to the following effect, “I’m a woman of color,” she’s attending some school in Maine and she’s saying, “I’m afraid. Can I still go to class?” Just work it through. What’s going to happen when Trump becomes president? He sets up roadblocks on every street corner whereby he whisks away all people of color to the designated gang-rape centers? What could explain that hysteria? The only thing that explains it is a departure from reality — and hence collective Munchausen syndrome.

 MM: We value victims — which is a good thing —  but there are groups popping up and individuals who seem to be vying for higher statuses of victimhood. You call this “victimology poker”.

GS: Everyone who is suffering from collective Munchausen and mass hysteria are obviously of a particular political bent — the ultra-Left (who typically belong to the Democratic party). And these people have built their whole ethos, edifice, zeitgeist on Identity Politics. Identity Politics leads to victimology poker and the oppression olympics. These groups just end up competing to see who is more oppressed because it is the mechanism through which they attempt to solve problems. If you and I are having a genuine debate, I would present my evidence and you yours. The better evidence would win out.

That’s not what happens in an Identity Politics debate. My victimology card has to trump yours! (Laughter) therefore people have to come up with ever stronger cards and hands and end up falling into victim mindsets. This leads to people thinking absurd lines of thought like — and I’m being satirical here — : “How will I go to the store and feel safe buying tomatoes once Trump is in office?” or “What will happen to my children? Will Trump cause us to cannibalize our children?” “Will sex still be permitted?” When you’re getting into that kind of delusional discourse it seems extraordinary that this is viewed as reasonable discourse. These are professors, these are colleagues of mine who feel perfectly comfortable departing from reality in this way.

Hate Trump as much as you want. Hate specific policies by him but don’t engage in this grotesque discourse. Especially because it trivializes actual lived trauma. As somebody who escaped Lebanon and actually hid under desks to avoid death squads, I don’t take well to these idiots from Wellesley College who say, “I’m scared to go and buy my hamburgers now that Trump won,” because it trivializes what true trauma is.

 MM: What would you say to your critics who would claim that you unfairly focus on left-wing lunacy and give right-wing craziness a pass — thereby “normalizing” Donald Trump?

GS: I call that the, “But what about Israel, bruh?” position. So I can’t talk about Islamic craziness unless I grant equal airtime to criticizing Israel?  That’s not how life works. We create a hierarchy of things that compel us. Some people fight for Tibetan freedom, others for Cypriot rights from Turkish occupation. So we don’t have to grant equal time to different issues.

I inhabit the ecosystem of academia. The ecosystem of academia is not run by Right-wing craziness. The academic setting, media elite, and the Hollywood elite are all part of the Left-wing lunacy. So everyday I don’t face the threat of the KKK or Right-wing fascism but I do see the extraordinary harm that is caused by what takes place in universities. That reality is caused by Left-wing lunacy. Hence as a person with a functioning brain I don’t need to provide equal amounts of criticism — that doesn’t mean I’m condoning Right-wing craziness. When I see some Republican senator who comes out with a position that is anti-science and evolution denying, I will be the first to typically criticize that. It’s not as if I exist to pick on the Left and grant cover to the Right. The reality is, in my daily life, I see a lot more danger coming from the Left.

MM: You’re one of the most outspoken academics who speaks about Islam and “Social Justice Warriors”. Are your views rare in academia or do you think there are other academics who support your message but are afraid to voice it. What motivates you to be a part of this debate and speak out?

GS: Yes it’s rare. If we were to estimate the number of people who hold positions similar to mine, it would be higher than those who are actually speaking out — because they’re afraid of voicing their opinions. I get personal communiqués from academics where they say, “I support what you’re doing” or “I’m behind your message” but they’re not comfortable speaking out. But they’re scared to even “like” one of my Facebook posts because someone would see it and that would mean they’re supporting supposedly “fascist” ideas such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, rights for Jews, and rights for gays. Those are supposedly all very “controversial” topics that they don’t want people to know they support because those are all “fascist” opinions. People with a “progressive” mindset don’t possess the correct moral compass in navigating these issues; they fear being accused of being a “racist bigot” for supporting freedom of speech and more generally foundational liberal values. It is astounding.

There is some change underway. Heterodox Academy is a collective organized by Jonathan Haidt precisely to recognize the fact we need to provide greater political diversity and more generally a greater diversity of opinions in academia.

Why do I do what I do? I think it’s my personhood; my unique constellation of genes that make me very angry and offended by un-truths. I get genuinely angered at profound bullshit. I feel I must give my voice to contribute to the debate and if everybody had that bent, bad ideas would not have as much airtime.

I think the loftiest pursuit in life is that of truth and therefore I try to honor that ideal at every opportunity.

MM: Moving on, can you explain the field of evolutionary psychology for us? Particularly how it operates at the ultimate level as opposed to the proximate level of the social sciences?

GS: Evolutionary psychology is basically the framework that tries to apply evolutionary principles to the study of the human mind. That should not be contentious to anybody who, frankly, has a brain. In the same way that we can explain how all biological forms have evolved through evolution, that process doesn’t suddenly cease to exist when we talk about human beings and their most important organ — the brain. Many people are perfectly comfortable using evolutionary theory to explain why we have opposable thumbs and why our liver functions in the manner that it does, but it’s: “don’t you dare apply evolutionary theory to study the human mind.” Somehow the human mind came to be through a magical process, or God, or culture, or socialization. An evolutionary psychologist argues that: “No, of course the human mind is the product of the forces of evolution.” That’s, in a broad sense, what evolutionary psychology is.

Evolutionary psychologists argue that the human mind is made up of domain-specific computational systems. The best way to describe that is to use the metaphor of a Swiss army knife: each blade of the Swiss army knife serves different functions unlike a domain-general (regular) knife that could be used to turn a flathead screw or cut butter. A Swiss army knife is built with the understanding that each of its blades solves a specific function. Let’s apply that to the human mind; evolutionary psychologists argue that our brain has evolved to solve specific adaptive problems: avoid predators, find a mate, retain that mate, build coalitions, invest in kin, and so on.

All of these problems would necessitate the human mind evolve specific computational systems to solve each of these problems — hence the human mind is an amalgamation of both domain general mechanisms, like general intelligence, and domain specific mechanisms. An example of domain specific would be the fact that a human child who’s too young to be socialized will stare longer at a beautiful face as opposed to one that’s not, This suggests that there is a innate mechanism already built into the brain.

Evolutionary psychologists operate at both the proximate and ultimate levels. Proximate explanations serve as the epistemological level where much of science operates at. Proximate explanations address the how and the what of a phenomenon. Ultimate explanations ask the Darwinian why. Why would that a trait, a behavior, or a morphological feature have evolved to be of that particular form (from an evolutionary perspective). Proximate and ultimate explanations do not compete with each other. You need both levels to fully understand the phenomenon in question.

MM: Can you provide us an example of an ultimate explanation and a proximate one? 

GS: Pregnancy sickness is a very common universal reality that pregnant women experience whereby they are attracted to certain foods and repulsed by others. They feel the physiological symptoms of nausea; they vomit often. If you were to study this from a proximate level you might ask: How do the hormonal fluctuations of a woman affect the severity of her pregnancy sickness?

The ultimate explanation would ask: Why have women evolved this physiological reality? What adaptive problem is being solved? Well, we know that pregnancy sickness happens during a particular developmental time for the fetus. It’s not random. It’s as well timed as a Swiss clock. It happens during the first trimester during a period known as organogenesis, namely when the fetus’ organs are forming. During that crucial developmental phase, it is imperative that the fetus be protected from harm. So what is the main threat? Food pathogens and teratogens constitute this threat. Therefore the foods that she craves and those that she avoids perfectly map onto that reality.

Pregnant women want pickles. Well, pickles are a food source that serves an anti-microbial function. During organogenesis, women avoid foods that, on average, might have a higher load of pathogens and crave foods that might help their body resolve the fact that they could have ingested some teratogens. Women throw up as a built-in mechanism to guard against the possibility of having been exposed to pathogens, and they do this (without any conscious volition) to protect the fetus.

By having this ultimate level explanation we have a fuller and better understanding of pregnancy sickness. You might say, “So what? Who cares? What are some practical applications of this knowledge?”

Well, the more a woman experiences pregnancy sickness the higher her chances of having a successful pregnancy and avoiding miscarriage. Why? Because pregnancy sickness serves as a protective belt against these deleterious outcomes. So when a woman goes to see her OBGYN and says she needs a pill for pregnancy sickness, she’s doing exactly the wrong thing. Of course it makes sense if she needs to avoid throwing up for the day because she’s working etc. but from an evolutionary perspective, her reducing the symptoms is suboptimal.

MM: I see. So you’re in a field of study that tries to get as close as possible to the truth in terms of explaining human nature. I’m imagining that you’d receive quite a bit of pushback from other fields? Which ones are they?

GS: This question defines my daily reality in academia. What evolution does — but evolutionary psychology more so — is that it confronts the ideological positions of a wide range of people.

If you’re a postmodernist, who by definition is anti-science, you support ideas such as: “Science must fall,” “who are we to use science as the sole privileged way of knowing?” “decolonize your mind,” “everything is relative, there are no universals.” The whole enterprise of postmodernism is rooted in charlatanism and faux-intellectualism. The idiot who is a postmodernist gets on a plane to deliver a lecture of his “work” at a conference; the flight of the plane in question is not rooted in relativistic mumbo-jumbo but rather in scientific laws as uncovered by scientists. So the idea that all knowledge is relative amounts to a nonsensical starting point; Not surprisingly though, postmodernists hate evolutionary psychology because it’s rooted in the fact that there are universal laws in general and human universals in particular.

Radical feminists hate evolutionary psychology because only “Nazi bigots” would argue that there are innate sex differences. But of course, the way Homo sapiens is defined as a species is that we are sexually dimorphic, namely that we possess evolutionary-based sex differences. Yet you can attend radical feminist seminars where people espouse the notion that only “Nazi bigots and eugenicists” believe in innate sex differences.

If you’re a social constructivist — which is what most social scientists are — you believe that everything is a social construction; that we are born with empty minds (tabula rasa) and what makes us human are the socialization forces that mold us. So it becomes: “Why do women prefer tall guys? Because they learn it via Hollywood images,” or “Why do men prefer shapely women? Well it’s because of Nicki Minaj’s music videos.” If it weren’t for her videos, men would apparently be mating with trees. Of course, evolutionary psychologists recognize the importance of socialization. However, socialization patterns exist in their particular forms because of biological realities. Hence, socialization is not contrary to biology. It exists to support biological imperatives.

Religious people also hate evolutionary psychology because it goes against their idea of God as the designer of all things including our exquisite human minds.

There are all sorts of folks who line up to detract against my field — seldom because of the science but nearly always because evolutionary psychology attacks their fundamental ideological position. They are all on the wrong side of history. To paraphrase Theodosius Dobzhansky, nothing about the human condition makes sense except in the light of evolutionary psychology.

If you enjoy our articles, be a part of our growth and help us produce more writing for you:


  1. “I inhabit the ecosystem of academia. The ecosystem of academia is not run by Right-Wing craziness.”

    Treating the college ecosystem as if it’s divorced from the outside world and not affected and influenced by it is not just irrational but bad science.

    This piece frankly sounds like you’re out of touch with the reality of what’s going on in America. I’m saying this as someone who interacts/ works with multiple activism groups as well as local political officials/ politicians/ community leaders.

  2. The correlation between privilege and who you aim criticism towards is made plain here by Dr. Saad: in the rarified world of academia, one has the luxury to rail against the (mostly entirely harmless) evils of the left, while those outside of Saad’s ivory tower who do not make the tenured prof salary would be better off fighting against the Right, who are most responsible for the economic instability and denial of rights that threaten their lives every day.

    Truly, if you’re enemy is the Left, you are a person of privilege. Dr. Saad is a lucky man, I’m sure he’d be quick to admit that. He fled Lebanon and the actual horrors of the Right, and now has the luxury to live in Canada and complain about trivial issues on the Left, in the lap of peace and security.

    1. MC: the left entirely harmless? Antifa riots and assaults and burning things is harmless? Banning Republican and christian groups on campus is harmless? Opposing freedom of speech is harmless?
      The right is denying rights? Where? Evidence please. Last I say that evil orange man gave blacks their highest employment rate in 50 yrs. Some oppressor.

      1. Your comment is made up of typical Radical Right Wing rhetoric that is designed to spread propaganda. Curious that it’s showing up now, just when the 2020 election cycle starts, when the record of Radical Right Wing violence over the past two years is so dominant in this country.

  3. Interesting article.
    Some religious people may have problems with evolutionary psychology, but most practising Christians would not think about evolutionary psychology (why would you?) and those that have thought about it (eg Anglicans, Catholic Church, Orthodox)don’t have a problem with it. that is, they do not see it as inconsistent with their faith.

  4. Carolyn: have you seen the garbage mountain your SJW heroes left behind in North Dakota? It’s even worse than what “Occupy” did to the city streets they blockaded. At a minimum, a “proper” nation knows how to take out its trash. Looks like your friends are still waiting for Mommy and Daddy to do it for them.

    1. Well I guess they are improper Native Nations. But they are still Nations. I guess we see things from different perspectives. Sorry for all the litter…from those “Pesky Redskins” which was what the scholar Thomas King wanted to call his book “The Inconvenient Indian.” But the publisher disagreed….

    2. Hah. Reason #7 I left the Sierra Club and the rest of the environmentalists behind, buncha damned hypocritical jackasses. What you get from a coddled safespace-obsessed social justice worshiping generation raised as trust-fundies with no adversity, work ethic, or challenges, spoonfed from the womb to adulthood. No responsibility at all! It’s nothing at all like the European eco-movements.

  5. Well how about the canard “evolution denying” by the principal of this piece? Sorry but Darwinian macroevolution is a storytelling. For example we have a system of tens of billions of parts, cilia, aggregated for one thing, expelling mucus from the respiratory passages. The Darwinian story cannot describe the piece by piece assembly of this system, all wired together to function with the wavelike motion required. That’s right tens of billions of cilia operating in coordination. What did this system look and work like when it was partially there, assuming it was built up gradually by small mutations like papa from the 19th century assured us? How would say 5% of the parts in place do anything for selective advantage of the organism like the amateur naturalist required of it? Why would that 5% of the system have any “reason” (sorry teleological language is impossible to avoid) to wire itself together if nothing would come of it for survival? The system would probably not do anything with less than 20% of the cilia in place as a rough guess.

    No Darwinist has been able to answer me on the blogs about this including Ph.D’s in the life sciences, except to tell me stuff like “We’re not going to tell you because you don’t want to learn” or “You’d never understand because you’re not a Ph.D biologist” or “You’re a d__k” . Please read a just published work “Darwin’s House of Cards” by Tom Bethell with recounts of hundreds of interviews with famous scientists, many of whose names you know.

    BTW ever wonder why it’s the “survival of the fittest” instead of “survival of the fit”, even though the latter should be sufficient? The latter is a tautology that’s why and the tautology is obscured in the former. What a hell of a science.

  6. Activism is a good thing even though there is a price to pay for it. Right now there are asylum seekers moving into Canada.at at least one obscure border points…Are they over reacting pretending to be ill? They are risking frostbite in N. Dakota..it is not recommended to come here and seek asylum necessarily..Some are coming in cabs, others being brought by car to the border. I heard a scientist t from a prestigious university in the USA who said he is planning a move to Canada soon (born in Iran) in the next month…He himself is not directly threatened but said with 47 per cent of the US citizenry in agreement with Trump’s seven-country ban, he feels more comfortable in another type of country or society…Since McGill and U.Toronto are in the top 20 world wide. He is willing to come here. He has also done work in Switzerland and UK. ( I am not threatened by the KKK but will do what I can see ti do for Any social justice action to bring KKK to heel).Canada has had a terrorist act recently. Killing six Muslims and injuring others….Willful blindness is not a pretty trait, but we all suffer from it. If you want to psychologize, why avoid psychologizing the Right Wing just because you do not suffer from them directly in your protected environment? I do not understand.

  7. “Religious people also hate evolutionary psychology because it goes against their idea of God as the designer of all things including our exquisite human minds.”

    This I disagree with. To me a true Christian would not think this as God has given us free will and in the end that free will is what feeds evolution. IMO

    Even though this was a little long, it was a good and informative read. It opened my eyes and created a bridge from what I thought could be possible, to an actual expert (more of an expert then me) verifying what I was thinking was not only valid but it even has a label.

  8. Read this, thought it was astonishingly on target…except for one thing:

    Characterization of fascism, nazism, etc. as a “right wing” phenomenon. I think this is where 99% of academics who lack exposure to a strong classical and economic background struggle.

    Here is a simple task for a scientist. 1) read the communist manifesto (5 pages, 20 minutes–no big deal), and note the vocabulary used by the German philosopher. 2) read about *all* of the political parties in Germany.

    3) create a graph–only two axes are necessary for the purposes of this exercise: on one axis (x-axis, say), plot “moral positivity” (positive is good, negative is bad–relative to humans).

    On the y-axis, plot economic prosperity. Positive is high growth, maximizes utility curves for all, etc.

    Now, plot party positions: low taxes, capitalism, no abortion, law and order, civil liberties, civil rights (FYI, reps voted for this 80%-20%, Dems only 60%-40%), national best interest, non-international interventionalism, strong military (this is the only thing that preserves stable international economics–the “Pax Romana”) etc. etc.

    All (as far as I could see on the *long* list a google search reveals) of Germany’s parties do not make it very far in that top right corner. They are either economically flawed and morally good-ish, morally bad and economically good-ish (the regimented high school system, early and permanent career determination, etc.), or just flat out bad-bad (bottom left corner NDP: the so called “ultra right”).

    Meanwhile, genuine, core republican beliefs–our “ultra right” are ultra economically prosperous, and ultra morally good (freedom, civil liberties, economic liberties, law and order, low taxes, strong defense, limited international offense–we have no desire for “conquest”–only the “Pax Romana” from earlier, as far as that benefits freedom and economic prosperity). This is the top right quadrant, utterly opposed (and mutually exclusive) to the core ideology expressed on germany’s “ultra right.” So maybe Germany uses the word “right,” but it doesn’t mean what they think it means.

    Next, do some research about the origins of classical liberalism (Marx’s “social conservatives” to connect back to the beginning of this statement), and you’ll find a philosophical history stretching back 2500 years to Athens Greece and the aftermath of the Peloponnesian war. Compare this to the 150 year history of Marx’s ideology.

    Finally, do some research about “ultra-right” parties in other countries. You will find that virtually all parties, everywhere, (except for the US, Britain, maybe Ireland, Singapore, Israel, Italy, etc.) are all just different shades of left. Further, these parties are often referred to as populist.

    However, I am focusing on Germany, because this is where the most aggregious political misbehavior has occurred in recent memory for the typical American educated person. You will find that the “right wing” parties have names like “National Democrat Party” (NDP from earlier) where they are merely *hawkish* liberal democrats. They still *hate* capitalism, civil liberties, etc.

    Once you’ve done that, I’m going to lay out a few political science concepts. First, “hawkishness” is not a political stance. Any party, of any creed, can be hawkish.

    Second: neither is nationalism. Again, a party of any ideology may be nationalist. This is not a “left” or “right” stance…it is simply another socio political axis (which means, in our 2d model above, *any* of the four quadrants split by morality and economy could be nationalist or non-nationalist, or even globalist).

    Third: allowing conventional wisdom to project all of this complexity down onto a line that ranges from left, to right, without understanding what that spectrum means, is only setting yourself up to be fooled, made a fool of, or hurt, more than help, your side.

    In this interview, you have conflated our (republicanism/conservatism/laissez-faire economics/civil rights and “color blindness”/anti-slavery/pro-civilian soldier, volunteer army, etc. mindset) ideology with the ideology of our dire enemies (the hawkish, nationalist, liberal democrat ideology of Germany, who *hate* us), as if we are sandwiched between them on the right and the soft mewling kittens on the American left.

    When, in reality, you just have one left, which can be either soft or hard, nationalist or globalist, hawkish or peacible–but which always has an ideological foundation in 18th and 19th century German philosophy (Karl Marx, Kant, progressivism, etc.), and the (completely misguided) economic beliefs of the same.

    Other than that, I think you did a great job.

    Also, no need to apologize (or relativistically equivocate) for Israel, once you have an understanding of the political landscape. Another dimension I haven’t mentioned is precedent. In the case of Israel, the country had biblical precedent–we all know that–but it also had precedent in the form of Allied victory and Ottoman surrender (following Ottoman aggression) in world war 1. Palestine arose from essentially nothing (probably just the remnants of Ottoman bureaucracy–if so, then it has basically zero precedential authority to exist).

    Having an eloquent, quick way of expressing this in English speaking countries will allow you to *VAPORIZE* any kind of anti Israel sentiment amongst native born English speakers.

    Why? Precedential thinking is instinctive in common law countries. There is no counter if you can establish superior precedent. This “trumps” even victim status.

    1. Hold on a second Chris. I read your comments with interest until the end, when it turned to confusion. If this Precemdential thinking takes place, then Americans should cede to the Native Americans, and Australians to the Aboriginee. As that has not taken place, or very likely, your point is invalid.

      1. Oluap Paulo: The First Nations were “little more than hunter-gatherer nomads”? Respectfully, may I suggest “The Inconvenient Indian” by the scholar, Thomas King? It is easy to be dismissive of conquered peoples as not a part of “proper” nations. Some say white people squat on Native land….

      1. And yet they unified to defeat Clinton. So maybe it IS a little more complicated after all.
        Or maybe she really was just that bad. Unless someone figures out how to run polls on sites that require no verification of identity, it’s pretty nebulous.

      2. Both communism and fascism are about the state being in total control. The only difference was the Nazis had a mythology about the aryan race being superior as their “god” whereas communists had communism as theirs. Otherwise, they both freely exterminated dissidents and “undesirables”, rigidly controlled the media, had only 1 party, etc. They were NOT on the right and left, but both 2 flavors of totalitarianism.

        1. The Synagogue I go to has police posted outside every day because of the slaughter of Jews by Right Ring radicals in America (the sister Synagogue to the one where the most notorius recent attack happened, is just up the way from us.

          I’d be curious if the past two years of radical right wing violence and plotting have impacted on the opinions of Gad Saad.

  9. A mountain of good reading. Thank you for your clear definition of this mass of women’s hysteria, they need to medicated themselves and be respectful.

Leave a Reply