Be responsible. Don’t stay in the Underworld!

He starts off at the 1:32 mark by telling CBC’s Wendy Mesley 

MESLEY:  What are the forces that have made you so popular? 

PETERSON: I tell archetypal stories.  Being fed a diet of rights and impulsive freedoms for 50 years, but rights aren’t as useful for establishing what’s meaningful in your life as responsibility.  The responsibility you take on for your career, the responsibility you take on for your education, the responsibility you take on for your family and the broader community . . . .

From the 7:23 mark forward Peterson is at his best . . . .

Don’t stay in the Underworld!  That’s who I am talking to. 

That’s what I am trying to do.  I am trying to call them forth as individuals out of the chaos that they are ensconced in.

What do you think should happen in this polarized world?  If you’re dealing with people you think are attracted by a pathological ideology? What do you think you should do with them?  What I do with them is say, “Look, why don’t you make yourself into an individual and get the hell away from the ideology?  And so a lot of these kids are lost in the underworld, let’s say, in nihilism and they turned to these ideological solutions because they don’t know what else to do and they’re angry.  It’s like I have something better for them to do—Grow the hell up!  and sort yourself out as an individual, and that’s exactly why I made this particular tweet.  And I get letters from people all the time who say, “Look, you know I was moving toward the fringes and I am not doing that any more.  I see why it’s wrong.”

So you’ve become this huge sensation?  Are you a prophet? 

Well, I don’t know where I go.  We’re in a new world really because of the reach of social media. And so I have this immense multimedia platform.    


“If you have your children in a school and they talk about equity, diversity, white privilege, take them out of class. They’re not being educated, they’re being indoctrinated”

h/t Lew Rockwell

Peterson made an excellent retort to the feminist tenet of “patriarchy” as “a reprehensible . . . rewrite.”  I would call it an abominable lie but who am I to mince words?

Men and women have lifted themselves up over the millennia in a “cooperative endeavor,” and for feminists to characterize the history of the world as “centuries of the oppression of women by men” is an “absolutely reprehensible ideological rewrite of history.”

Peterson tells parents with boys to teach them courage.

His advice for parents of young boys was to “encourage them,” meaning to “instill courage in them, to support their courage.”

“That doesn’t mean protect them from what’s dangerous,” he said. “It means teach them how to be competent and teach them that they can rely on themselves to prevail in even the darkest of circumstances.”

And his coup de grace was this

Peterson also had some very specific advice for parents: “If you have your children in a school and they talk about… equity, diversity, inclusivity, white privilege, systemic racism–any of that–you take your children out of the class. They’re not being educated, they’re being indoctrinated,” he declared.


HOPEFUL: Trump to Meet With Kim Jong-Un in May

from the New York Post

The historic meeting was brokered by the South Korean government, which delivered the invitation to the White House and divulged the details outside the West Wing.

“He expressed his eagerness to meet President Trump as soon as possible,” South Korean National Security Director Chung Eui-yong said of Kim.

“President Trump appreciated the briefing and said he would meet Kim Jong-Un by May to achieve permanent denuclearization.”

The Post adds that

Possible progress being made in talks with North Korea. For the first time in many years, a serious effort is being made by all parties concerned,” Trump wrote.

No American president has ever met with a North Korean leader.“The World is watching and waiting! May be false hope, but the U.S. is ready to go hard in either direction!”

The US and North Korea do not even have formal diplomatic relations and the two nations remain in a state of war — because the 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice.

Trump tweeted out his achievements

Remember how President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in month 9 of his presidency?  And everybody questioned why, what for?  And then he proceeded to bomb 7 other countries.  Like him or not, at least if Trump is nominated for an award it will at least be for something that he actually did prior to being awarded. 

Already there’s talk of Trump’s achievement around the national newsroom.


“The steel industry are the crybabies of the beltway lobby farm”

h/t Robert Wenzel @ EconomicPolicyJournal

The steel industry are the crybabies of the belt way lobby farm.  They gang tackle every new president that comes in with their tale of woe.  In this case, they’ve got the biggest sucker yet.  This whole thing is a giant mistake.  I was involved way back in 1982 when I negotiated for the Reagan administration an 18% quota on foreign steel, and they all pledged on their honor that after 5 years they would be competitive, they wouldn’t need the protection anymore and here we are 30 years later and one device they’ve had in protection after another and it’s still the same old story. 

At the one-minute mark, Stockman decries a trade deficit.  Wenzel writes

David Stockman is excellent here but there is no trade deficit problem.

There is no trade deficit problem.  See Murray Rothbard dismantle that idea in 90 seconds in that above link.

Trade tariffs by the way are belligerent.  Wenzel cites William L. Anderson who explains how

Further, William L. Anderson has correctly made the case that tariffs are sanctions. They result in the same kind of cruelty:

Standards of justice and decency demand that sanctions be lifted against Iraq. However, the people of nations like Guatemala, Bangladesh, China, and Peru are not deserving of the same fate as Iraq just because they are poorer than we are. It makes no sense to decry aggression against Iraq, and then demand the same treatment for those countries that wish to do nothing more than engage in peaceful exchange with American citizens.

INDISPENSABLE READ: “communists and liberals . . . support ‘mass democracy’ while they concentrate power in secretive elite bodies such as politburos and appellate courts.”

The following essay, titled “Intellectual Roots of Terror,” is a review by James Ostrowski of the book The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (1997), authored by Stephane Courtois, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, and others.  Ostrowski’s article originally appeared at the Mises Institute on 09/23/2011.

Further evidence of some basic affinity between communism and modern liberalism is the latter’s frequent coverups and apologies for the former.

As zebras are fascinated by lions, libertarians are fascinated by communists, their polar opposites and sworn enemies for the last 150 years. If one believes that society should function with an absolute minimum of governmental coercion, one is curious to know the results of a philosophy which places its faith in the maximum possible use of governmental coercion, force, and violence, to achieve its goals. If communism worked, we libertarians would be forced to check our premises and watch our backs.

Can the laboratory of communism also shed light on the viability of a related political philosophy, which also relies on centralized governmental coercion to achieve its goals: modern liberalism? The communists did all at once what stealthy left-liberals apparently intend to do piece by piece while we sleep. We just lived through a century in which liberals enacted several recommendations of the Communist Manifesto and transformed a night-watchman state into a welfare/warfare state with a continual flow of “progressive” legislation and various “Democrat wars” and crusades with the result that no one in my law school class in 1983 could identify, in response to Professor Henry Mark Holzer’s query, any aspect of life that was not in some way regulated or controlled by the state. Seventeen years later, are they through?

Has liberalism closed up shop? Will they ever be through? Not until they have established an egalitarian utopia where virtually all responsibility for living has passed from the individual to the state. In the liberal utopia, if I may pilfer Paddy Chayefsky’s words, “all necessities [will be] provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.”

If you think I exaggerate, consider that liberals and communists share five critical premises: egalitarianism, utopianism (the use of impossible “ideals” as a guide to policy), the efficacy of force in accomplishing positive goals, hostility to civil society (nonstate institutions, e.g., Boy Scouts, private schools), and the individual’s inability to govern himself.

In light of the recent attempted coup d’élection, I am tempted to add a sixth similarity — willingness to win political fights at all costs. Further evidence of some basic affinity between communism and modern liberalism is the latter’s frequent coverups and apologies for the former. Finally, communists and liberals share a tendency to expressly support “mass democracy” while they in practice concentrate power in secretive elite bodies such as politburos and appellate courts.

In that spirit of fascination with the enemy, I recently read The Black Book of Communism, a clinical and relentless dissection of the crimes of communism in the 20th century — defined by “the natural laws of humanity” — written by several ex–fellow travelers led by Stephane Courtois.

It is not a book to be read before, during, or after a meal. You would not want to spoil a good meal with the image of Bolshevik troops throwing live human beings into a blast furnace. The Black Book is a story of mind-numbing and mindless brutality. Mao Zedong, one of the stars of the book, said, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

One wonders, after reading this book, whether political power actually grows out of the depraved minds of solipsistic, megalomaniacs like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. It seems that if you hypnotize yourself into discarding all known ethics and morality, and are willing to use any and all ruthless means to achieve power, then you can have it. A Bolshevik newspaper wrote in 1919, “Our morality has no precedent … everything is permitted … Let blood flow like water.” And it did.

When Khrushchev said, “We will bury you,” he meant it. Communists buried 85 million people in the 20th century, give or take the number of people who live in New York State. What is really interesting, however, is not the sheer number of victims. After all, as Stalin said, “A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.” And what a statistician Stalin proved to be.

But even more awesome is the incredible variety of their murderous means. In pursuit of utopia, the communists were forced to outdo themselves in continually discovering ever more ways to separate the bourgeoisie from their souls. They murdered people by hanging them, whipping them, slitting their throats, carving them up with axes, boiling them, crucifying them, beheading them, drawing and quartering them, stoning them, forcing them to fight to the death against other prisoners, massively drowning them, throwing them from helicopters, asphyxiating them, starving them, poisoning them, burying them alive, and making life unbearable leading to mass suicides. When creativity was absent, the communists fell back on their old standby — the banal bullet to the base of the brain.

Communists killed all types of people but focused their most intense fury on entrepreneurs, community leaders, and the highly educated. They made some half-hearted efforts to abolish money and decried “speculators,” “rich bastards,” and, “shopkeepers.” Lenin said that “speculators … deserve … a bullet in the head.” As the Nazis later would, the communists recruited many of their murderous thugs from the dregs of society. Thus, communism may be defined as the execrable executing the exceptional.

Communists were not merely satisfied with manufacturing ghosts; they wanted to teach their class enemies a lesson or two first. It is not clear what that lesson was since, according to Marxist doctrine, capitalists’ capitalist ideas are strictly determined by their relationship to “the means of production.” I suppose the answer to that quibble is that the communists’ hatred of the bourgeoisie was also a class-determined fact beyond their control. There was no time for arcane debates, however; there was only politically incorrect flesh to be fried, literally.

Leaving aside being forced to read all three volumes of Das Kapital, the communists’ means of torture included partial asphyxiation, burning with red hot irons, confinement in tiny cells without plumbing, systematic rape and forced prostitution of “bourgeois women,” mock execution, beatings, near starvation, being forced to eat the flesh of recently executed family members, forced marches, electric shocks, kneeling on broken glass, being manacled in tight handcuffs, hanging by the wrists or thumbs, and prolonged sleep deprivation leading to madness. Cannibalism, while not strictly speaking a form of torture, was also a common occurrence in communist countries due to their felonious collectivization of agriculture and resulting famine. The things communists did to priests and seminarians were so despicable that I cannot bear to describe them.

When communists were not destroying individual persons, they were busy destroying individual personality. They made heavy use of concentration camps and transported prisoners there in cattle trucks (sound familiar?). Prisoners were deprived of all privacy and were forced to confess their innermost thoughts. Spies were everywhere. No one could be trusted. There was only the “brutish imposition of a heavy-handed ideology” and the “permanent saturation with the message of orthodoxy.” The result was an “abdication of the personality.”

To rationalize their mass murder and torture, the communists first used the technique usually associated with the National Socialists — rhetorically dehumanizing their enemies. The communists exhorted their thugs to “shoot them like dogs,” and referred to the bourgeoisie as “vultures,” “pygmies,” “foxes,” “lice,” “insects,” and “pigs.”

Thus, communism meant mass murder; mass famine; mass torture, physical and psychological; dehumanization; and widespread cannibalism. With that kind of record, we can say about the death of communism what Pol Pot’s troops said to those about to experience death by communism: “Losing you is not a loss, and keeping you is no specific gain.” Lenin said, “The cruelty of our lives, imposed by circumstances, will be understood and pardoned.” Not!

Don’t get me wrong. Not all was bad under communism. There were elements of life under the dictatorship of the proletariat that would appeal to today’s liberals and conservatives. Left-liberals, who on economic issues favor a dictatorship of the majority, would have been happy with socialized medicine, communal day care, and the total abolition of private firearms. Lenin, in a cautiously worded policy analysis, recommended “immediate execution for anyone caught in possession of a firearm.” He understood that “gun control” means the control that an armed citizenry has over a tyrannical government. The Bolsheviks systematically disarmed the peasants before systematically starving millions of them to death. Peasant pitchforks proved no match for Bolshevik machine guns.

Liberals also would have been ecstatic over the enshrinement of their moronic slogan “People over Profits” by the communists. There was not a capitalist profit to be made in communist countries, other than a few rubles for waiting in line to buy toilet paper for a comrade. Communists knew, perhaps instinctively, that all human action, not just capitalist action, is profit-seeking behavior. That is, all human action aims at achieving satisfaction from the attainment of goals more highly valued than the resources expended to attain them. Thus, the only way to stop people from putting “profits over people,” was to murder them en masse. However, since the communist thugs’ murderous behavior was itself profit seeking, they logically erred by neglecting to commit suicide.

A certain type of conservative would have approved of the communist legal system. There were no lawyers to speak of, except in graveyards: no criminal lawyers “getting people off”; no “ambulance chasers”; and no namby-pamby civil-rights lawyers filing suits over prison conditions. Habeas was a corpse. Communist prison reform consisted of cleaning out the raw sewage from tiny prison cells at least one a month. Knee-jerk lawyer-bashing conservatives would have loved it there — right up until the moment when government agents broke down their doors in the middle of the night, arrested them for some imaginary crime, locked them up, and tortured them until they not only confessed to the imaginary crime but asked for forgiveness and literally thanked the government for prosecuting them, minutes before they were taken out, without appeal, put up against the nearest wall, shot, and buried in an anonymous grave — while their families were sent a bill for the bullets.

Under communism, “People were not arrested because they were guilty; they were guilty because they were arrested.” Stalin eloquently expressed his own philosophy of criminal procedure when he commented about a tiresome lackey recently executed, “The old fellow couldn’t prove his innocence.” Instead of the right to remain silent, interrogations lasted as long as 3,000 hours. Rule of thumb: any country that kills people to use them as fertilizer probably has no lawyers.

I knew that the communists killed millions. There were surprises in the book, however. In the winter of 1939–40, many Polish Jews fled east to escape the advancing German army. They ran into the heroic Red Army, which five years later would boast of liberating the Jews from concentration camps. The Red Army greeted the fleeing Jews with bayonets and machine-gun fire. Many Jews returned to the German sector. Ultimately, 400,000 Polish Jews who ended up in Soviet-controlled territory died during deportation, brutal concentration camp life, and forced labor.

The Black Book of Communism is a brilliant description of the crimes of communism. Its concluding chapter, written by Courtois, which attempts to explain “Why?” faces a more difficult challenge. The “why?” will perhaps never be fully understood. Courtois points to a number of factors, many of which are related to the philosophical similarities between communists and left-liberals previously discussed.

The inability of the individual to govern himself without coercive direction from the state. Courtois locates the genesis of Leninist terror in the French Revolution. Robespierre ruled by fear and terror because the people “were not yet pure enough” to grasp the wisdom of the revolution. All left-wing thought is premised on the individual’s inherent inability, intellectually and morally, to function without continual direction from the state.

Elitism. Of course, if people are incapable of successful living without external guidance, that implies the need for a small elite, the “moral guardians of society” — Courtois’s words describing the Bolsheviks’ self-image — to give them their marching orders.

Utopianism. This concept is critical to understanding the crimes of communism. Utopians posit some imagined, allegedly ideal state of affairs, which, not being grounded in human nature and the human condition, cannot be achieved. Yet, it must be achieved, and since it is the ultimate moral value, any and all means necessary to achieve this ideal are sanctioned. As Courtois writes,

the real motivation for the terror … stemmed from … the utopian will to apply to society a doctrine totally out of step with reality. … In a desperate attempt to hold onto power, the Bolsheviks made terror an everyday part of their policies, seeking to remodel society in the image of their theory, and to silence those who, either through their actions or their very social, economic, or intellectual existence, pointed to the gaping holes in the theory. … Marxism-Leninism deified the system itself, so that categories and abstractions were far more important than any human reality.

Egalitarianism The primary targets of communism were persons of accomplishment: businessmen, successful farmers, intellectuals, and priests. It was easy to harness the natural envy of the masses toward their betters, particularly when this age-old envy was dressed up in utopian and moralistic terms.

The Efficacy of Force Naturally, at the heart of Leninism was a fervent belief in the use of force and violence. Society can be improved by killing, starving, torturing and generalized terror. Trotsky said it best: “only force can be the deciding factor … Whoever aims at the end cannot reject the means.”

Violence Begets Violence Courtois deems it significant that communism first emerged from the wreckage of World War I. The war “to make the world safe for democracy” made it safe for a murderous communist dictatorship in Russia. The senseless violence of the war habituated the Russian people to the senseless violence of Leninism and Stalinism. Later communist regimes were nurtured in the womb of other senseless wars. Courtois quotes Martin Malia:

crime begets crime, and violence violence, until the first crime in the chain, the original sin of the genus, is expiated through accumulated suffering… it was the blood of August 1914, acting like some curse of the Atreidae on the house of modern Europe, that generated the chain of international and social violence that has dominated the modern age.

None of these factors, however, can fully explain why a human being would throw another human being into a blast furnace. In the end, we are left with the words of Maksim Gorky: “What are the roots of human cruelty? I have thought much about this and I still do not understand it in the slightest.”

[The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression • By Stéphane Courtois and Mark Kramer • Harvard University Press, 1999 • 858 pages] 

Reprinted here with expressed written permission from James Ostrowski.

“make great movies, give fun interviews and bite your pontificating lip”

I didn’t watch the Oscars thankfully.  I knew I would be deluged by a series of virtue-signaling something or other.  So I spared myself.  And though I’d not been much of a fan of Piers Morgan, his excoriating “10 Point Plan to Fix the Oscars” is flawless.

PIERS MORGAN: Slash soppy speeches, axe tedious awards, ban ALL politics, shut up about bloody Meryl, and unleash Ricky Gervais onto Hollywood’s elite – my 10-point plan to save the Oscars.

And the loser is . . . the Oscars!

The Academy Awards tanked in the ratings last night, with the audience dropping by 16%.

If the numbers firm up, then it will be officially the least watched Oscars in televised history.

As Hollywood wonders how the hell this happened, I offer my own theories, as somebody who loves movies and many of those who make them.

1) It was too long – waaaaayyyyyyy too bloody long. We’ve had raging debates for years about the Oscars being too white, too straight and too male, but the real problem is that it now drones on for an interminably dull length of time. Nobody has the patience for a movie lasting even two hours these days, let alone an awards show about movies that lasted 3hrs 48 minutes. My wife, who endured the whole thing in the early hours of the morning in Britain, looked like a flesh-eaten zombie by the end. If you want to get big Oscars ratings back then cut the night in half. No viewer will complain.

The show is TOO LONG. Speeches are too long and too dull. Oldman banged on for three minutes
spite the running offer of a free jet ski to whoever made the shortest speech

2) The speeches were also way too long and often excruciatingly dull. The stats don’t lie: in the early 1950s, the average length of an Oscars speech was 29 words; now it’s 174 words. Best Actor winner Gary Oldman banged on last night for nearly three minutes! This despite host Jimmy Kimmel offering a free $17,000 jet-ski to whoever made the shortest speech. I’ve said it to actors before and I will keep saying it: nobody wants to hear your laborious thank you laundry lists. Thank your parents, your partner, your kids, your agent and the people who actually paid for tickets to see your films (Jordan Peele was the only one I heard do this with any sincerity) – and then shut up. You can always tweet your unctuous gratitude to the other 100 names of people we’ve never heard of. Imagine how much more fun the speeches would be if every winner just said something similar to the brilliant Allison Janney’s opening words: ‘I did it all myself!’

3) For the love of God, can you all shut up about Meryl Streep? The constant Groundhog Day name-checks and references to her genius were particularly grating this year given her very close association to disgraced Harvey Weinstein, her shockingly hypocritical support for Roman Polanski and her constant anti-Trump political outpourings that have turned her from the beloved Queen of Hollywood into a reviled figure in much of America. A period of dignified silence from Ms Streep, and those who queue up to gush about her, is long overdue. Enough already!

4) Slash the musical performances in half and get rid of the Best Song Category. This isn’t the Grammys and as we learned to the cost of our ears last night, a lot of actors just can’t sing. When Gael Garcia Bernal painfully rasped his way through sing ‘Remember Me’ – the smash hit from Coco – my mind drifted back to when I was a judge on America’s Got Talent and I longed for that red buzzer to cut him short and get him off stage. As someone put it on Twitter: ‘Someone give Gael Garcia Bernal a bucket because he needs some serious help carrying that tune…’ Exactly. 

5) Remove the 10 most boring awards, like Sound Editing or Lighting Design. No offence to any of the talented and invaluable people who work in these departments, but they’re not stars so nobody at home either knows them or cares. When an emotional Kazuhiro Tsuji (who?) thanked his cats after winning Best Makeup and Hairstyling, I felt myself slip into a mind-numbing coma. These categories slow the pace of the show to that of a terminally ill snail. Same rule should apply to the “In Memoriam” section. This should only feature big stars, not the people who sat behind studio desks writing cheques.

Slash the musical performances in half and get rid of the Best Song Category. This isn¿t the Grammys and – as Gael Garcia Bernal reminded us – a lot of actors just can¿t sing
And dump the 10 most boring awards. When an emotional Kazuhiro Tsuji (who?) thanked his cats after winning Best Makeup and Hairstyling, I felt myself slip into a mind-numbing coma

6) Mash the montages. There were so many of the damn things, I’m only surprised there wasn’t a special extended montage devoted purely to this year’s montages. Why do need to see a montage of previous winners before a montage of this year’s nominees? It’s just more dead air time devoted to self-congratulatory bullsh*t. The montage celebrating 90 years of the Oscars felt like it lasted 90 years. And don’t get me started on the shameless ‘Isn’t warfare terrible/wonderful?’ virtue-signalling in the military one.

7) Ban all politics. Just make it a contract rider that if any winner or presenter mentions anything political, they get a lifetime ban from attending the Oscars again. This may sound a bit draconian but it’s so incredibly tedious watching rich, privileged actors bang on about their causes and issues. When Jennifer Lawrence announced last week she was taking a year off to educate young people about politics, the world’s collective groan could be heard from Tipperary to Timbucktoo, and I realised Tinsel Town’s pulpit preaching had officially jumped the shark. I love Jennifer as an actress and personality, but nobody wants or needs her to educate anyone on politics. Just make great movies, give fun interviews and bite your pontificating lip at awards shows.

8) Hire a host who can prick the pompous, self-adoring ego balloons lurking in every row of the theatre, with biting sarcasm and razor-sharp takedowns. They not only deserve it, they desperately need it. Movie stars spend the entire year being told how wonderful they are by myriad sycophants. For one night only, let’s see the spotlight fall on some of their imperfections, in a jocular way. And let it fall from the spike-tongued mouth of someone who truly doesn’t give a damn who he offends in the world’s epicenter of political correctness. No offence to Kimmel, who did a perfectly competent job last night, but you know who I mean… it’s time for Ricky Gervais to host the Oscars. I guarantee ratings would leap by 30% just on that announcement alone.

Hire a host who can prick the pompous, self-adoring ego balloons lurking in every row of the theatre, with biting sarcasm and razor-sharp takedowns. No offence to Jimmy Kimmel, who did a perfectly competent job last night, but it¿s time for Ricky Gervais to host

9) More icons on stage, less B-list celebrities. The public wants to see Brad and Angelina, preferably minutes after they’ve had a massive backstage bust-up after the latest twist in their divorce battle. Or Tom Cruise jumping off Oprah’s sofa again like some unhinged whackjob. It all felt so tame, lame and risk averse last night – everything scripted to within one inch of its life. 

10) Last but by no means least… stop giving the Best Picture award to obscure films very few non-movie people actually see, like or understand. The winner this year was The Shape of Water. Not seen it? The plot stars a mute orphan named Elisa who lives alone and has only two friends; a gay neighbour and African-American co-worker. She works as a cleaner at a secret government laboratory that receives a humanoid amphibian creature in a tank captured from a South American river. She then has sex with it. Yes folks, in the year of #MeToo and #TimesUP campaigns driven in the main by revulsion at disgusting monsters like Harvey Weinstein… the movie industry’s most prestigious body gave its most coveted trophy to a film about a woman who has sex with… a disgusting monster! Irony is dead, and they wonder why Middle America isn’t tuning in any more?

An STOP giving the Best Picture award to obscure films very few non-movie people actually see, like or understand. The winner this year was The Shape of Water, about a mute orphan named Elisa who works as a cleaner at a secret government lab that receives a humanoid amphibian creature in a tank. She then has sex with it
In the year of #MeToo and #TimesUP campaigns driven by revulsion at disgusting monsters like Harvey Weinstein, the movie industry¿s most prestigious body gave its most coveted trophy to a film about a woman who has sex with¿ a disgusting monster!
LA Editor

Expert Proofreading & Editing Service

Wolf Street

The stories behind business, finance, and money

City-Data Blog

Telling stories through data

%d bloggers like this: