Links - 2nd July 2026 (2 - Wokeness and Women)

Thread by @Scarlett__Mag on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "On the cover of this week's @NewStatesman: Not the manosphere, but the femosphere?  Gen-z women are in revolt against a country they don't like and don't think works for them.  Thanks to @Will___lloyd for commissioning new research on angry young women @emilylawford 🧵👇
✴️Young women are 26 pts less favourable to capitalism than young men, and feel much more positively towards communism than capitalism.  
✴️Women u25 dislike capitalism so much, they view it as (un)favourably as fascism.
✴️UK should pay slavery reparations by a 2-1 margin
✴️They think 43%-40% 'it is unfair some people have more than others and we should redistribute wealth' over 'people deserve to keep what is theirs, even if it means others have less'  
✴️More negative than young men about their careers, earning potential and property
Young middle class educated white women feel the most strongly about these issues.
✴️17% of ABC1 women have a positive view of capitalism compared to 32% of C2DE women  
✴️ABC1 women more likely to think the economy works against them
✴️Female graduates hold much more positive views about communism, feminism, socialism and extinction rebellion than non-graduates
✴️Grads are also more likely to back slavery reparations say we need more government intervention to ensure life is fair
White women are more critical about the country and their chances in it than those from an ethnic minority background  
✴️Young white women are more likely to say the country is racist and sexist  
✴️Young white women are less likely to say they feel valued by society
There is a 'Covid generation'
✴️ U25s are much more likely to think Covid had a significant impact on heir lives and opportunities.  ✴
️U25 women are much more likely to believe that "things are stacked against me, no matter how hard I try"
Strikingly, young women are *a lot* more negative about the opposite gender than young men.  
✴️U30 women are 3x as likely to hold a negative view of young men than the other way around  
✴️Just 35% of u25 women hold a positive view, only 11% a very positive view
✴️6 in 10 (58%) say they would find it difficult to date someone who disagreed on Gaza  
✴️3 in 4 (74%) say the say the same about views of Donald Trump, with even more saying they wouldn't date someone who disagreed about social justice"
Clearly, privileged women feeling more oppressed and miserable proves that they understand how shitty life is for women today and less privileged women are suffering from false consciousness

Why is there such a huge political divide between young men and young women? : r/NoStupidQuestions - "One political party is telling young men that they are the problem with everything that is wrong in the world today  The other is telling young men that they can achieve anything if they just work hard and support their family"
"Show me a single dem who has said that"
"“I just want to say to the men in this country: just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.” - Senator Mazie Hirono
“Men have been getting on my nerves lately… we’re violent, we’re bullying.” - Barack Obama
“The future is female.” - Hillary Clinton
“The Democratic Party is the women’s party.” - Anna Greenberg
There’s no question that the Democratic Party overall is more pro-female than pro-male. You don’t find nearly as many anti-female comments from Dem leaders, and the policy recommendations definitely prioritize women. Just look at their platform and the “Who We Serve” section of their website. The Dems have alienated a lot of men over the years."
"“Now women, I just want you to know, you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you are better than us [men]." - Barack Obama"
"I mean the top comment here when you sort by controversial is "young men are fucking stupid".  Like why do you smoothbrains love to ignore what's right in front of your face?"

Meme - "Birth rates declining. Governments panicking. Men complaining. Meanwhile women are finally tasting what life feels like when they're not automatically drafted into unpaid labor, emotional support, and struggle disguised as womanhood."
Cory Rogers: "Governments aren't panicking because women are finally "free." They're panicking because societies don't work when people stop having kids. No workers. No taxpayers. No one to replace the aging population. That's not patriarchy. That's just reality. Men aren't complaining because women aren't providing emotional labor. Men are checking out because modern dating has become a bullshit deal where they're expected to provide, protect, pursue, pay, and perform while being told they're not needed. Eventually people stop playing a game that's stacked against them. The feminist propaganda is pretending every sacrifice women made was oppression while completely ignoring the sacrifices men made too. Family wasn't some evil plot against women. It was a partnership that built civilization. The fact they're trying to sell collapsing birth rates, loneliness, and broken families as empowerment tells you everything you need to know."

Feminists Increasingly Engage in Acts of Violent Extremism - "Terrorism has long been part of the feminist armamentarium. During the decade before the First World War, feminists terrorized the United Kingdom with a wave of attacks on churches and shops that included bombings, arson, and physical violence. In 1912, suffragettes attempted to assassinate Prime Minister Herbert Asquith by hurling a hatchet at him (1).  Suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst justified these acts of terrorism by claiming that at a time of injustice, it was inexcusable to not set off bombs. As a result of the misguided suffragette campaign, at least five persons died and dozens were seriously injured (2).  In Germany, historian Elizabeth Heineman has written an entire book on Feminism and Terrorism, highlighting the terrorist activities conducted by feminists Ulrike Meinhof and Gudrun Ensslin in the notorious Red Army Faction during the 1970s and 1980s. (3)  Now, feminists in the United States and Latin America are increasingly engaging in extremist and violent attacks on property and persons:
United States: Following the leak of the impending Dobbs v. Jackson decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, a dramatic spike of violent attacks on churches and pro-life clinics and organizations was documented. In 2023 alone, 436 acts of violence were identified, including fire-bombings, desecration of religious objects, and vandalization of buildings (4). In New Jersey, seven high school students were suspended after they assaulted 16-year-old Nichole Pagano for holding a pro-life sign (5).  The FBI later opened investigations of many of these incidents as “potential acts of domestic violent extremism.” (6)
 Latin America: International Women’s Day has become a rallying point for pro-abortion feminists across Latin America as they engage in lawless activities such as vandalizing churches, spraying graffiti, and attacking bystanders. In many cases, civilians form a human shield to protect churches from the attacks.  During the 2021 Women’s Day protest in Mexico City, feminists wielding hammers and sticks attacked the National Palace, injuring 81 police officers and civilians. One photograph depicts four women carrying a slab of metal as a battering ram against the police defenses (7).  In Morelos, feminists sought to violently remove the fencing in front of the Cuernavaca Cathedral. In Oaxaca, feminists attempted to set fire to the church front door (8).
One report reveals the scope of feminist extremism:  “Increasingly violent demonstrations in Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Argentina, as well in several countries in the West, for example those organized to mark the UN’s ‘Women’s Day’ (8th March), saw religious buildings and faithful attacked. People were left unaided by police and other emergency services as they sought to defend their churches, temples, and other religious buildings at great personal risk.” (9)    World Watch Research analyst Rossana Ramirez admits, “It is especially worrying that the degree of violence and aggression towards churches and religious statues is increasing in intensity every year.” (10)  Of equal concern is the tendency of media accounts to downplay the seriousness of the feminist attacks. Accordingly, there have been few legal consequences for the perpetrators. In England, feminist Emmeline Pankhurst once boasted about the inability of officials to keep her in prison: “Four times they took me back again; four times I burst the prison door open.” (2)  Physical attacks on persons, bombings, arson, and more. Amazingly, not a single feminist organization is known to have ever condemned or called for a cessation of the terrorist tactics."

No wonder men are opting out | The Spectator Australia - "The warning signs have been there for decades. Back in 1983, American author Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a powerful book – The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment – arguing that a male revolt was underway. Since the 1950s, she suggested, men had begun rebelling against the breadwinner ethic – inspired by Playboy culture, the counterculture, and a desire for personal freedom. They were rejecting the cultural ideology that had shamed them into tying the knot and becoming a good provider, lest they be seen as immature, irresponsible, and less than a real man. Ehrenreich understood that marriage was the mechanism by which society harnessed male productivity. Remove the shame, and the yoke comes off. Forty years on, the yoke has disappeared. In April 2026, the American male labour force participation rate hit its lowest level since records began in the 1940s, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. One in three American men – roughly 33 per cent – were not working or actively looking for work. The overall male participation rate for men aged 16 and over stood at just 67 per cent, down from 73.5 per cent two decades ago and from 87 per cent in the postwar years when Ehrenreich’s story begins. The trend is not confined to America. Australian men’s workforce participation has fallen from around 79 per cent in 1978 to approximately 71 per cent today, while similar declines – though less dramatic than in the United States – have occurred in the UK and Canada...  Ehrenreich had made the argument that marriage and productivity were inseparable – that the same mechanism which got men to the altar got them to work. The data suggests she was right. What Ehrenreich did not fully reckon with – could not have foreseen in 1983 – was that the inducements for tying the knot would collapse. The shame mechanism has disappeared, yes, but the incentive has simultaneously imploded. The product on offer has changed beyond recognition. If you want to understand why men are voting with their feet, you need to look not just at what marriage now costs them – and the costs are severe – but at what it delivers. Increasingly, what it delivers is a pretty dud deal.
The modern woman: a prospectus
Some studies show they are the most miserable, anxious, and insecure cohort in living memory – hardly great marriage material. Many married women go off sex – and the husband who objects is seen as the problem. Many women don’t actually like men very much. The more educated she is, the higher the contempt. Increasing numbers of women have gone full throttle left – and three quarters of college-educated women in some studies won’t even date a man who votes differently. The education system contains anti-male rhetoric and it has, in some cases, colonised corporate and institutional life, turning universities and workplaces into man-repellent factories. Yet their hypergamy is still running hot. Despite outnumbering men in education and careers, statistically some women still demand a tall, equally high-status unicorn. The modern female threat-detection system is hyperactive. Almost any male behaviour – silence, opinions, jokes, breathing – gets flagged as a red flag. Many women are well-versed in the lucrative economics of divorce, and there have been reported incidents of false allegations being used to eliminate tedious shared parenting.
What rational man reads this list and thinks: yes, that’s exactly what’s been missing from my life?... many young women don’t like men. A Merlin Strategy poll of young Britons aged 18 to 30 found three times more young women than young men held a negative view of the opposite sex. Only about 50 per cent of women had a positive view of men compared to 72 per cent of men feeling positive about women. For women under 25, it was even starker: only around one-third (35 per cent) reported a positive view of men. This applies particularly to professional and managerial young women of whom, according to some polls, just 36 per cent hold a positive view of men, compared with 61 per cent of working-class women. In other words, the contempt for men is most concentrated in educated, middle-class women – precisely the demographic that has benefited most from feminist gains and whose prospects are objectively the strongest.  The contempt for men is hardly surprising – that’s what they have been taught. Mary Harrington, a British journalist and cultural critic who writes on Substack, frequently critiques what she calls the ‘femosphere’ – the online feminist spaces where women bond through shared grievances about men. ‘The online feminist scene often feels like one long group therapy session for women to compare notes on how awful men are,’ she writes, suggesting this makes men the universal scapegoat, where ordinary male behaviour is routinely framed as toxic or oppressive, while women’s collective resentment is rewarded and amplified. ‘Casual, low-level male-bashing has become the background hum of progressive online culture.’  Encountering these women isn’t much fun for men. Reddit recently published this telling comment: ‘It’s exhausting. You might be having a decent conversation, then she drops a casual “men suck” comment like it’s small talk. Feels like you’re starting every interaction with a presumption of guilt.’...  Not only does this toxic climate encourage women to be wary of men, but growing up in a hate-fuelled online sewer takes a toll on their mental health...  Recent large-scale surveys (Ipsos 2025–26 across 31 countries, Gallup 2025) are showing Gen Z women currently report the highest recorded levels of anxiety, persistent sadness/hopelessness, and depression of any female generation at the same age. Around 33 per cent of young women feel anxious or worried about the future ‘almost all the time’; 40 per cent of Gen Z workers feel anxious or depressed at least a few times per week, according to recent 2025 surveys... For as long as anyone can remember, men were shamed into showing up economically. Society has absolutely nothing to say to women who stop showing up sexually. One obligation was enforced by church, law, and community for centuries. The other is now abrogated on the grounds of bodily autonomy. So here we have the portrait of the modern woman as marriage prospect: miserable, anxious, politically radicalised, contemptuous of men, often sexually rejecting, and trained to see menace in ordinary male behaviour. And yet the puzzled chorus from commentators, economists, and policymakers continues: Why won’t men commit? Why won’t they work?

Meme - Valia @livetime_fe: "No but the men are so lonely I wonder whyyyyy"
""How to k*ll a woman without leaving a trace" was googled 163 million times in 2025. But it's okay-let's talk about alimony and the male loneliness epidemic."
Bobbyman @bobby_man_: "oh please"
"how to kill a woman"
"how to kill a man"
"Interest over time *how to kill a man always being significantly more popular, up to more than 2.5x as popular*

Meme - Kangmin Lee @kangminlee: "Women have spent decades championing feminism, only to end up bitterly miserable. Yet they'll blame capitalism, men, or anything else before admitting that they were wrong."
"me at work because I'm watching my baby sit up for the time through the monitor"

Meme - "wild thought but maybe the rise in right wing men has something to do with the normalisation of being hateful towards men. idk if i was hated on for something i couldnt control i could be radicalised easily too.."

mike bski on X - "Let me tell you something that peer-reviewed science has documented for years and that the Democrat Party is PRAYING you never connect to what happened outside the White House yesterday.  56% of white liberal women aged 18 to 29 report chronic poor mental health. The same demographic of conservative women? 27%. The "extremely liberal" category shows a 150% HIGHER rate of mental illness compared to moderates. These are not my numbers. This is the General Social Survey. 64,000 respondents. Decades of data.  Now here is the part nobody in mainstream media will say out loud.  The Democrat Party knows this. They have always known this. And they are NOT trying to fix it — because a psychologically healthy voter who is not in a constant state of fear might start asking inconvenient questions. Like: what have Democrats actually accomplished in the cities they have run for fifty years? Like: if your policies work so well, why is everything still getting worse?  Those are not questions a panicking person asks. That is exactly the point.
Quinn's Law Number Four: "Liberalism only succeeds when the public is scared into believing it will not survive without it."
So they do not give you small threats. Democracy is dying TODAY. Fascism arrived LAST TUESDAY. Trump is Hitler, a traitor, a pedophile, an EXISTENTIAL MONSTER who must be stopped by any means necessary. They crank the volume to eleven just to get the alarm to fire in a brain that was built to need bigger threats before it activates — and then they CANNOT turn it off.  A woman quit her job in 2025 and moved into her car because she found out her boss voted for Trump. Thousands of supporters cheered her on. Not one Democrat politician looked at that and said "this person needs actual help." Because a woman in a car blaming Republicans is not a person in crisis to them. She is a campaign ad.
Now tell me — what happens when you take that same psychological machinery, run it on a person already unmoored from reality, and tell them for YEARS that the man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is literally Hitler and that stopping Hitler is a moral imperative?  You get four attempts in [X DAYS] days. That is what you get.  Cole Allen's manifesto at the Correspondents' Dinner read like a Democrat Party press release. Verbatim. He did not invent those words. He assembled them from a media ecosystem that broadcast them daily to millions of dysregulated, chronically anxious people who were never offered help — only more outrage, more fear, more fundraising emails with subject lines that read "THIS IS AN EMERGENCY."  The machine that keeps their voters scared and dependent is the SAME machine that keeps producing assassins...   But what do I know — I am only a science teacher who literally wrote a published textbook on how the human brain works, a medically retired Army combat medic who has run more mental health calls than most people have hot meals, and apparently one of the only people left willing to say that DELIBERATELY KEEPING YOUR VOTERS MENTALLY ILL FOR PROFIT is not compassion — it is predatory."

Meme - Grant Bailey @grantjbailey: "Interesting gap here-teen girls are increasingly saying that being a woman will hinder their work opportunities. @FamStudies"
"Teen girls feel limits on work opportunities % of 12th graders who say being their sex is an obstacle to getting work"
Feminism: teaching women that they are victims to radicalise them so they will push the left wing agenda

John Carter on X - "Women have never been freer, more prosperous, or more independent, they've never been safer, they've never enjoyed more support and validation, they've never had more power and opportunity, and they are absolutely furious about all of it."
Time to condemn misogyny and label misandry a myth

How young women are radicalized into hating men - The Globe and Mail - "While there has been much criticism of the “manosphere” and its associated peddling of misogyny to boys, analogous female-centric online communities – the “femosphere” – thrive as well.  Femosphere influencers encourage women to be calculating in their interactions with men and to use them for their money, akin to how some men will use women for sex. The femosphere is similarly noxious in its promotion of misandry to girls, yet it has elicited milder, if any, consternation by comparison.  Leaving this bias unchecked has had serious consequences. Poll findings published by The New Statesman suggest that a generation of young women have been radicalized by online content, moving further left in their politics and harbouring full-fledged hatred of men.  Young women, especially those with white-collar jobs, have more negative views of the opposite sex than men do. Only 50 per cent of women polled (aged 18 to 30) said they have a positive view of men, while 72 per cent of same-aged men had a positive view of women.  For women under the age of 25, this pessimism was more pronounced – only about a third reported a positive view of men. Although the manosphere’s anti-woman ideology has been loud, it seems anti-male attitudes are more widespread. In addition to polarizing content on social media, the educational system and a cultural desensitization to male suffering have produced this unfortunate shift in young women – including fomenting a sentiment that retribution against men is justified.  In higher education, young women are told they remain oppressed at the hands of men. In response, many scholarships and professional opportunities are offered explicitly to women (but not to men), despite the fact that women and girls are objectively outperforming their male peers. Regarding cultural trends, when pop superstar Sabrina Carpenter began killing men in her music videos, this further solidified her popularity instead of ending her career. I highly doubt a male musician nonchalantly depicting homicidal acts against women in today’s climate would enjoy the same acclaim.  Many young men are understandably aggrieved by this double standard. And the resentment on both sides has roiled the dating pool... How will this battle end? Studies have found that women become more conservative with marriage and motherhood, but as more young women eschew both due to women’s greater economic success and societal norms celebrating their singledom, the political gap – and lack of understanding – between the sexes will only grow.  Single men looking to settle down may feel inclined to downplay their right-leaning political beliefs to spark a woman’s interest, but this does not fare well for the longevity of a relationship. With such a stark misalignment in values, many young people are giving up on dating altogether.  Instead of engaging in an endless spiral of dehumanizing the other, men and women must call out sexism and cruelty on both sides. Our institutions and media should acknowledge that online extremism can occur from women and men alike.  Both sexes must recognize that every person they meet is an individual, not a member of a tribe. A stranger shouldn’t be held responsible for the hurtful things a previous partner did. Consuming divisive content won’t make a person savvier on the dating market. It only lines the pockets of histrionic influencers and Big Tech."

TheTinMen on X - "I'll be honest.  When I read articles like this, I am entirely lost as to what “being a progressive” actually means.  Besides living what seems to be a wretched life, twisted-up within a social-media-induced web of chronic pessimism; a lot of these young "progressive" women appear to have very inward facing, rigid, uncompromising, low resolution, cookie-cutter world views, that to me, are the absolute antithesis of “progressive”, and anything but liberal.  I know this brand of 'angry young woman' well.   They remind me of the arts / politics students I used to critique (95% were women); almost ALL of their ideas were the same, ALL lacking in originality and bravery, every pitch just another spineless, rehashed combo of LGBT and/or feminist soundbites.  It was tiresome.   And these were Masters students, at one of the world's most prestigious arts schools; all of them mid-twenties, living in the zeitgest of London, and nearly every idea they came up with, was just... the same.  You can imagine what I was like being pitched these ideas (lol), and whilst it lasted, I tried my best to snap them out of it, and genuinely challenge their entrenched views.   They never really listened.   "Please, no more pitches about feminism or LGBT", I once asked the entire class, which of course fell on deaf ears; as literally, the next student stood up, cleared her throat, and announced her film on "environmental feminist activism".  FML.   These so-called "progressive" ideas, are actually the new status quo.   And we're so afraid to throw stones at them (especially in higher education), that true progressivism feels like a distant memory, and a word with no meaning at all.  Remember, by its nature, to be a progressive is to be unpopular.   Progressivism doesn't win you applause, it gets you pelted with eggs.  You won't hear it on stage at your local feminist SU society; but rather, whispered behind bike sheds, by outcasts and weirdos.   As a great man said –  “Progress isn't achieved by preachers or guardians of morality, but by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels and sceptics”.  So what does "being a progressive" mean to you?"

Italian Food Culture as Marketing

Historiker: "Die italienische Küche ist nichts anderes als Marketing" (Historian: "Italian cuisine is nothing more than marketing")

Translated version:

The story of Pizza Margherita? A fake. Historian Alberto Grandi has discovered that many myths surrounding traditional Italian dishes are completely fabricated.

Everyone immediately thinks of pasta, pizza, and other delicious food when they think of Italy. Specialties like Neapolitan Margherita or Roman Carbonara are now as legendary as the Colosseum, the Amalfi Coast, and Pompeii. For some time now, Italian cuisine has developed a cult following. People cite supposedly original recipes from the time of the Medici dynasty or those originating from poor shepherds in the Apennines. Deviations from these recipes trigger veritable shitstorms on social media. 

 Italian cuisine, the traditional cuisine, is not to be trifled with. This glorification of food is precisely what irks historian Alberto Grandi. That's why he researched the true origins of Italian dishes. What did he discover? It's all fake. Carbonara, the origin stories, even the culinary figure of Nonna. In his book, "Mythos Nationalgericht" (Myth of the National Dish), he claims that Italy's famous cuisine only developed after the Second World War. 

Italian cuisine, the traditional cuisine, is not to be trifled with.  

STANDARD: In some articles about your book, you're described as a "destroyer of Italian cuisine." Is that true? 

Grandi: I'm not destroying it; I'm telling a different kind of story about Italian cuisine. 

STANDARD: Which is? 

Grandi: Over the last 50 years, we've simply invented a great many recipes and stories. There's an excess of myths and legends surrounding Italian cuisine. It's nothing more than marketing. 

STANDARD: So, when I read that tiramisu originated from a 17th-century dish and was already being eaten by the Medici, is that a fairy tale? 

Grandi: Yes, it's marketing. There's nothing wrong with that. Marketing is about selling products. Tiramisu couldn't have been invented until the 60s or 70s. Mascarpone requires refrigeration for production and wasn't readily available to everyone. That only became possible with the development of supermarkets. My mother is 90 today. 50 years ago, mascarpone was a complete novelty for her.

STANDARD: Why do you have a problem with how stories about food are passed down? 

 Grandi: Food has such an enormous place in our culture. And I find that strange. As a historian, I find it difficult that food is now the most important aspect of identity for Italians. I consider that dangerous. Just this morning I was discussing this with a friend. He said that everything in Italy depends on tourism and food. That's not true. 90 percent of Italy's GDP isn't attributable to tourism. The reactions to my work show that many Italians don't know the economic and social reality of our country. 

STANDARD: Food is indeed an emotional topic. Just think about how to prepare a dish "correctly." For many, carbonara can only be made with guanciale and pecorino. 

Grandi: Ten or fifteen years ago, Gualtiero Marchesi, one of the most important Italian chefs, added heavy cream to carbonara. Today, people would go ballistic about that. Carbonara isn't a recipe, it's a religion. A Roman journalist once threatened me with violence because of such statements in my book. 

STANDARD: Is there such a thing? A right or wrong? 

Grandi: That reminds me of the story of Amatriciana sauce. If you use onions in the sauce today, you're considered crazy. But its long history shows that the only truly constant ingredient from the beginning of the 20th century until just ten years ago was the onion. So: What is the right recipe? 

STANDARD: But why does this happen? 

Grandi: Cuisine is no longer just part of our identity, it is our identity. Italians lack confidence in the future, and that's why they invent a past. One true Italian cuisine doesn't exist. It's the same with the nonnas, the grandmothers. They can't cook as well as everyone always claims. Grandmas can make two or three good dishes, and that's it. 

STANDARD: You're telling me the dear old nonnas are fake? 

Grandi: As far as cooking is concerned, yes. They cook up a storm for holidays, but the rest of the year their cooking is poor and monotonous. 

STANDARD: On social media, nonnas are the experts on Italian food. 

Grandi: Massimo Bottura, a very famous chef, says he learned everything from his nonna. That's completely impossible. The ingredients, the flavors, the cooking techniques that a nonna had at her disposal before the World Wars are completely different from today. That's another myth. 

STANDARD: So what did people eat if not pasta and pizza? 

Grandi: Until the First World War, pasta was only known in Naples. The rest of Italy ate a lot of vegetables, soup, and polenta. They cooked with chestnut flour and lard. So not the Mediterranean diet we know. That's also a fabrication. Nobody ate like that. 

STANDARD: Really? 

Grandi: If you look at southern Italy today, it's the region with the highest obesity rates. People used to eat poorly and in small portions; now they eat too much and too rich food. 

STANDARD: Which true story about a dish surprised you the most? 

Grandi: Perhaps the strangest story is that of Parmigiano Reggiano. Parmesan has a very long history, almost 2,000 years. During this time, the cheese has undergone many changes. In its original form—small, soft, fatty, and black on the outside—it was produced in Wisconsin in the USA. Italian immigrants brought it with them. It wasn't until the 1960s that it was further developed in Parma into its current form. 

STANDARD: So how did that terrible Italian food become fantastic? 

Grandi: One factor was the large-scale emigration of Italians between 1860 and 1960. At that time, 25 million people left the country. Thanks to economic growth, some of them returned in the mid-20th century, bringing with them dishes and recipes that are now sold as authentic. 

STANDARD: Which dishes are those? 

Grandi: Pizza, for example. Pizza was invented in Naples, but it tasted awful. The dough was hard, burnt on the outside, and still doughy on the inside. And it didn't have tomatoes. It was only through the Italian diaspora that pizza was further developed and improved in the USA. 

STANDARD: One of the most famous stories is that pizza was created for Queen Margherita's visit and represents the colors of the Italian flag. 

Grandi: There's a document that tells this story. It's a fake. Pizza Margherita wasn't invented until years after the queen's death. And she never ate it. What you find in Naples today is an American invention. 

STANDARD: So the Americans put mozzarella and tomatoes on pizza? 

Grandi: Exactly. Tomato sauce isn't Italian either. It comes from Spain. It only really became established after the Second World War. Tomato sauce is difficult to preserve. That's why industrialization was necessary. 

STANDARD: Is there even such a thing as truly traditional Italian food? 

Grandi: The worst word you can use for Italian cuisine is "traditional." There is no culinary tradition. 

STANDARD: You've listed tomato sauce, Parmesan, tiramisu, and pizza as fake. What about Bolognese? 

Grandi: Everyone makes Bolognese differently. There's no original recipe. These days, people say Bolognese is cooked without tomatoes. But you can't really claim that. 

STANDARD: And Carbonara? 

Grandi: Carbonara is a little different. Although it originated in Italy, it comes from the Americans. At the end of World War II, after the conquest of Rome, soldiers combined their rations of powdered eggs and bacon with pasta. They called it "Spaghetti Breakfast." So it doesn't originate with the charcoal burners in the Apennines who prepared pasta with bacon and cheese during their breaks. Incidentally, the first recipe for Carbonara was published in Chicago in 1952. It wasn't until two years later that it appeared in Italy. And even that was different from the modern version. It used Gruyère cheese, pancetta, and garlic. 

STANDARD: In Austria, Carbonara is also cooked with heavy cream and ham. 

Grandi: Heavy cream was frequently found in Carbonara recipes well into the 1970s. 

STANDARD: So our version isn't a fake Carbonara? 

Grandi: There is no fake Carbonara. Every recipe has its place. But don't say that out loud when you're in Italy. 

STANDARD: Let's go through the rest. What about olive oil? 

Grandi: That's a very strange story. Fifty years ago, olive oil was used for everything except cooking. For oil lamps, for example. It tasted very sour and very intense. It was unsuitable for food. Italians preferred to cook with lard, butter, or margarine. It wasn't until the 1980s that the quality of the oil improved enough to be used for cooking. 

STANDARD: Pasta comes from China, right? Grandi: Yes and no. Pasta came to Italy via Sicily through the Arabs. People used to eat pasta by hand, mixed only with garlic, fat, and cheese. 

STANDARD: Can you still go out to eat in your hometown without being insulted? 

Grandi: (Laughs.) I don't know what it would be like in Naples; I haven't dared to go there yet. But yes, I can still go out to eat. 

STANDARD: What do you eat then? 

Grandi: Spaghetti with tomato sauce.

Links - 2nd July 2026 (1 - Palestine/Middle East Peace [including Canadian Museum for Human Rights Nakba Exhibit])

David Asper blasts museum over controversial Nakba exhibit - "Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present, set to open in the museum's Rights Today gallery on Level 5, will explore what the CMHR describes as the "ongoing forced displacement and dispossession of Palestinians" through artwork, photographs, video testimonies, and personal stories from Palestinian Canadians. For a growing number of voices, including members of the family most responsible for the museum's very existence, the silence speaks volumes. The Canadian Museum for Human Rights was the dream of the late Winnipeg media magnate and philanthropist Israel "Izzy" Asper. His family raised millions to build it, and it opened in 2014. His son, David Asper, a prominent Winnipeg lawyer and businessman, says what is unfolding at the institution his father built is a betrayal of everything it was supposed to stand for.  "My dad never had a problem with telling the whole story," Asper told the Winnipeg Sun. "I think he'd be disgusted at how the telling of this story has become weaponized in the antisemitism game."  For Asper, the exhibit is not simply a curatorial misstep; it is a symptom of a broader failure of institutional leadership and of a political class unwilling to take a stand. He says the exhibit perpetuates what he calls a victim-oppressor propaganda narrative, one that deliberately carves out the historical context of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.  "The Palestinians were offered a state, their own state, and rejected it. Not only did they reject it, but they also attacked Israel and started a war. They lost the war. Start a war, lose a war, and now I'm going to be the victim, just like October 7." Asper is equally critical of the museum's curatorial process. He pointed to the reported involvement of Ramsey Zeid, a committee member with a public record of anti-Zionist advocacy, as evidence that the process was compromised from the outset.  "It's putting the fox in the henhouse," he said. "They were all partisans. There are historical facts that are facts, not feelings. We've moved into the realm of feelings, not facts."  He described the exhibit as the latest front in what he called a long-running and highly sophisticated propaganda effort, one that exploits Western democratic values against themselves.  "This is a highly, highly sophisticated, organized propaganda machine that has been making the Palestinians victims for a very, very long time," he said. "And now they've got the CMHR, hook, line, and sinker, with no serious critical context or analysis."  He reserved particular scorn for political leaders, he says, who have refused to intervene. When asked what he would say directly to Prime Minister Mark Carney, Asper's answer was blunt. "Goalies are never the team captain. He was a goalie when he played hockey. Goalies stop pucks, they don't do elbows up. When you say elbows up, we shouldn't be saying it about the U.S. or anything else. We should be saying it about our own bloody country."  Asper said he still holds out hope for the rule of law, but acknowledged that without leadership, hope is a thin thread.  "You hope at the end of the road, whether it's a judge or a politician, somebody's got the spine to stand up for Canada and for what this country is supposed to be about."... CIJA's concerns go beyond the exhibit's historical framing. Zentner says extremist anti-Israel organizations have been openly claiming a direct role in the exhibit's creation, the same groups, he notes, that organize protests outside synagogues, Jewish schools, and through Jewish neighbourhoods across the country.  "This exhibit risks legitimizing and normalizing these extreme narratives, and those who use them to target Jews here in Canada," he said.  Zentner also pointed to the context of sharply rising antisemitism in Winnipeg. This week, the Winnipeg Police Service released its 2025 hate-motivated crime statistics: out of 37 hate-crime reports related to religion, 32 involved Jewish victims... "The opacity surrounding the curatorial process has resulted in a serious breach of trust," Zentner said. "This matter goes to the museum's core mandate. As a national, publicly funded institution, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is expected to contribute to the collective memory and sense of identity of all Canadians, not to serve as a vehicle for a one-sided political agenda."... "At the end of the day, it's a spineless board. The CEO supports the exhibit, and the minister and the entire government are pandering for Muslim votes, and so they stand for nothing."  The controversy has also reached the museum's founding family directly. Gail Asper, David's sister and the philanthropist whose family helped fund the CMHR's construction, has publicly called for a review of the exhibit before it opens, warning that anything fanning the flames of antisemitism must be "scrupulously considered." This marks what observers say is a first on two counts: the first time a Canadian museum has been threatened with legal action by Shurat HaDin, and the first time a Canadian museum has dedicated an exhibit to the Nakba from the perspective of Palestinian Canadian survivors. With June 27, 2026, now weeks away, the community voices opposing the exhibit are running out of time and options. Some in Winnipeg's Jewish community are asking harder questions, about Canada, about its institutions, and about whether those institutions can still be trusted.  Asper said the pattern of silence from politicians and museum leadership is not unique to this issue, it reflects a governing philosophy built on saying nothing and offending no one.  "The liberal MO is to try to make everybody happy, say everything, and stand for nothing," he said. "You know what the recipe for failure is? That."  Zentner echoed that sentiment, framing the issue in terms of the museum's institutional legitimacy and the country's commitment, under Prime Minister Carney's own Canadian Covenant, not to transpose foreign conflicts onto each other. "National institutions must be held accountable," he said. "At a time of rising antisemitism and extremism, the museum must not be instrumentalized in service of a dangerous political agenda. Its very legitimacy depends on its leadership's ability to demonstrate rigorous adhesion to the highest standards of professionalism and integrity."  For David Asper, the question is not really about one exhibit. It is about whether Canadian institutions and Canadian leaders still have the backbone to stand for something."

Leak reveals secret meeting between CMHR and Palestinian ambassador | National Post - "Internal emails obtained by National Post show that senior officials at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) had a discussion with the Palestinian representative to Canada, in which she attempted to get involved in, and was updated on, the progress of its upcoming “Nakba” exhibit, raising fresh questions about the political agendas behind the highly controversial exhibit at the publicly funded museum.  In an email dated Dec. 5, 2024, Ramsey Zeid, the president of the Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba (CPAM) who has been a member of the Palestinian Content Advisory Network (PCAN) for the exhibit, wrote to Matthew Cutler, the CMHR’s vice-president of exhibitions, and Isha Khan, the museum’s CEO...  The Palestinian General Delegation confirmed to the Post that the meeting took place, but would not disclose what was discussed... The apparent co-ordination between the museum and the Palestinian representative occurred amid repeated complaints from Jewish organizations about inadequate consultation and a lack of historical balance. And they have good reason for concern...  Gaudes was asked for a list of people involved in its content advisory committee and was not forthcoming. Yet in March, the Post acquired a list of PCAN members from 2023, which was composed of hardened anti-Israel activists, including Zeid. Zeid is a controversial Palestinian-Canadian activist who has made a number of alarming public statements. After the October 7 massacre in Israel, for example, he wrote that Zionism “is a disease that must be destroyed.”  Neil Oberman, a Montreal lawyer who has taken on numerous cases involving allegations of antisemitism and anti-Israel actions, said that there is a serious question as to whether the CMHR has violated its own mandate under the Museums Act, which explicitly states that its purpose is to “explore the subject of human rights, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, in order to enhance the public’s understanding of human rights, to promote respect for others and to encourage reflection and dialogue.”  Citing Canada’s Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act, he noted that, “A foreign mission engaging openly with a Canadian institution is not, without more, unlawful. The offences target conduct that is covert, deceptive or coercive. That is why the issue turns on transparency: was this an open, disclosed exchange, or was a foreign government quietly given a hand in shaping how a national museum presents history?”  While this may not rise to the level of foreign interference, co-ordinating with a foreign government’s representative on content for a taxpayer-funded exhibit designed by a Crown corporation raises numerous ethical questions.  The exhibit would also appear to violate ethics guidelines from the Canadian Museums Association, which emphasizes that multiple perspectives should be presented fairly and impartially, and that any biases should be made clear to the public.  Emails suggesting Abuamara’s keen interest in “progress” and “assistance” would seem to go beyond a simple courtesy visit and imply an effort to shape Canadian public memory and education by a foreign government.  At this point, the museum needs to reveal what was discussed with the representative regarding the exhibit. The CMHR is a national museum established under the Museums Act and receives the majority of its operating budget from the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is under the purview of Culture Minister Marc Miller, who was recently appointed chair of the council tasked with combating antisemitism. This is ironic, given that this exhibit will likely have the opposite effect and inflame hatreds toward the Jewish community."

Palestinian exhibit at human rights museum 'should be rectified': federal heritage minister - "Heritage Minister Marc Miller said Monday the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg has erred in how it curated an exhibit about displaced Palestinians... The museum's only Jewish trustee, Mark Berlin, resigned last week and said he was not given a chance to view the exhibit in advance."
Naturally, terrorist supporters were very upset over this and other people protesting the museum's historical inaccuracy. Of course, they love to complain about museums' historically inaccuracy when it exposes the reality of "Palestine" - so it's clear that they don't care about museum independence or accurate history: they just want to demonise Israel with lies. To say nothing about how they lobby museums or even try to destroy historical artefacts to push the left wing agenda even on non-Palestinian issues. But then, they claim Israel protesting is a foreign country interfering in a domestic affair, but meeting the Palestinian ambassador is fine

'Nakba' exhibit produced by group of hardened anti-Israel activists | National Post - " Bakan has been a member of Independent Jewish Voices. Don’t let its name fool you, as it is stridently anti-Zionist. Despite the inclusion of the word “Jewish” in its name, it is not representative of Canadian Jews. A 2024 study conducted by Robert Brym, a professor of sociology at the University of Toronto, found that only three per cent of Canadian Jews actively reject Zionism... Abdo also conveniently omits details prior to the United Nations partition plan, including the 1929 Hebron massacre, the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt and attacks during the 1947-1948 civil war that killed hundreds of Jews. She doesn’t provide a history, but a one-sided narrative that ignores atrocities committed against the Jews and the context of Israel’s actions. Abdo leaves out the fact that immediately after Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, armies from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon invaded to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. She also omits other relevant events, including the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (no peace, no recognition, no negotiation with Israel) and the numerous times that Palestinians rejected offers for statehood, making it appear as though they are completely blameless for the current situation... One would assume that a human rights museum would want its advisory committee to be historically accurate and unclouded by political bias, and that it would follow internationally recognized ethical standards, such as those put out by the International Council of Museums (ICOM). ICOM’s code of ethics states that, “Research by museum personnel should relate to the museum’s mission and objectives and conform to established legal, ethical and academic practices,” and that, “Displays and temporary exhibitions, physical or electronic, should be in accordance with the stated mission, policy and purpose of the museum.”... When I asked Gaudes, CMHR’s spokesperson, whether Jewish groups would be allowed to participate in the consultation process, she answered in the negative, saying that “these are (Palestinian Canadians) stories,” and that “the exhibit is neither a historical retrospective nor an examination of the founding of the State of Israel or current Israel-Palestine relations.” Finally, the code of ethics says that, “It is a professional responsibility to consult other colleagues within or outside the museum when the expertise available in the museum is insufficient to ensure good decision-making.” Yet if the CMHR relies on a committee comprised predominately of activists, without any broader consultations with other stakeholders, which has been offered by Jewish groups but not accepted, the taxpayer-funded museum is failing to perform its due diligence. Canadians deserve better."
Clearly, ICOM is biased and infiltrated by "Zionists" and should be ginored

I visited the 'Nakba' exhibit, and it is as anti-Jewish as feared | National Post - "Our government is officially failing Jews and Palestinians. That’s what I came away with thinking after touring the Canadian Museum for Human Rights’ newest exhibit, Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present. At first glance, this may appear to be another disagreement over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not. It is a question about the responsibilities of a democratic government and the values it chooses to advance through institutions that speak with its authority. A federally supported national museum is entrusted with pursuing historical truth through accuracy, balance, and scholarly rigor. It is not another advocacy organization free to advance a political narrative as settled history. That obligation is precisely what makes Palestine Uprooted so alarming. The exhibit, which opened to the public on Saturday, does far more than recount the “catastrophe” of mass Palestinian displacement during the 1948 Arab Israeli War, as the official website’s definition of the “Nakba” term states. It’s important to note that this definition has only been in popular use for about 40 years. Originally, the Arabic term was used to describe the Arab League’s embarrassing military defeat largely at the hands of Jewish socialist farmers, Holocaust survivors, and former refugees, all with little international support. Rather than inviting Canadians to wrestle with one of the world’s most complex conflicts, it teaches visitors to understand the conflict as solely a consequence of Israel’s creation. In doing so, genuine Palestinian suffering is transformed into a perpetual weapon targeting everything related to Israel, and encourages the public to view millions of Jews as the beneficiaries and defenders of an ongoing historical injustice. This is not the pursuit of historical truth. It is a toxic political instruction delivered with the authority of the Canadian state. Walking through the museum, located in the heart of Winnipeg, one design choice immediately stood out. The Nakba exhibit is physically positioned after the museum’s Holocaust gallery, meaning visitors move directly from one of history’s best documented genocides into a highly politicized presentation of the 1948 Arab Israeli conflict. That transition creates a subtle but unmistakable emotional and interpretive bridge between two entirely different historical contexts, carrying visitors from a universally recognized moral framework into a contemporary political narrative with the implication that the same categories of understanding naturally apply. While the implicit promotion of Holocaust Inversion certainly informs the conclusions visitors are invited to draw. Inside the exhibit, that framing quickly becomes more pronounced. The material is not presented as a set of competing historical interpretations or unresolved debates. Instead, it is organized around a single guiding premise: that Palestinian displacement in 1948 is not simply a historical event with several causes, but the beginning of an “ongoing” Jewish Israeli-imposed tragedy that entirely ignores Palestinian suffering when Israel cannot be blamed... Not mentioned in the exhibit are the at least 850,000 Jews who were forcibly displaced and expelled from Arab countries since Israel’s creation, most during and in the years immediately following the war. Entire Jewish communities that had existed for centuries across Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere were effectively erased. The pattern continues throughout the gallery. Israeli checkpoints, movement restrictions, and separation barriers are presented as evidence of oppression, while the decades of mass murder that prompted many of those policies are ignored. One panel’s vague reference to the Second Intifada, of the early 2000s, as a “Palestinian uprising” comes across as an excuse for Jewish Israelis to arbitrarily “undermine rights to housing, family life, livelihood and equality before the law.” No acknowledgement of how Palestinian terrorists and civilians alike murdered over a 1,000 Israelis or even the hundreds of Palestinian victims murdered during the colloquially termed “intrafada.” Apparently, the biggest injustice from that period is the inconvenience imposed by security checkpoints and an ugly barrier. The pattern continues. “Following the Hamas attack that killed about 1,200 people on October 7, 2023, Israel launched a large-scale military campaign in Gaza. Today, more than 240,000 people have been killed or injured, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health and UN agencies.” The meticulously coordinated terrorist attack involving mass murder, torture, and rape is flattened into an imprecise casualty figure, and the 251 hostages disappear entirely. The reader is instead directed to an anonymous figure that obscures the individual data points and conflates those killed with those injured, producing a number that far exceeds the Gaza Ministry of Health’s own public claims, all without disclosing that the ministry itself is Hamas or controversies over whether the data has been manipulated. Throughout the gallery, Arab and Palestinian agency is largely stripped away. Political decisions, rejected compromises, internal repression, and acts of violence become secondary, encouraging visitors to interpret tragedies inflicted on both peoples as chapters in a single continuing story that conveniently begins in 1948 and remains fundamentally attributable to Israel. So, the initial framing determines the conclusion, which collapses more than a century of complex and often unrelated developments into a single interpretive chain of causation. None of this comes as a surprise... This exemplifies the hollowness of the “Nakba narrative.” It cannot fully explain Palestinian history because too much of it contradicts its central premise."
Multivocality and visitor participation are bad when it threatens the left wing agenda.

Andy Ngo on X - "London (June 14) — A man was seen wearing a variation of the Antifa logo with the Palestine flag incorporated in the design at a protest out the Edgware United Synagogue. Antifa claim to be revolutionary anarchists against all borders, but they riot for Palestinian nationalism.   Five people were arrested for violent disorder at the direct action. One of them was also arrested on suspicion of assaulting an emergency worker."
Another way to read it is that Palestinianism is self destructive like anarchism

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib on X - "Does Norway support terror? Walking through downtown Oslo, I came across a disturbing mural – apparently sponsored by the Oslo National Academy of Arts, a publicly funded institution – glorifying the iconography of violent extremism. The display featured Hamas’s inverted red triangle, a rifle, a keffiyeh, and the image of a Lufthansa civilian aircraft placed in front of a Marxist militant from the PFLP, a group responsible for multiple plane hijackings. Behind it all: smoke plumes meant to evoke an Israeli airstrike on Gaza. This was not “solidarity.” It was a celebration of terror against civilians, presented as if it were synonymous with the Palestinian cause. It is a perfect snapshot of what has gone wrong in parts of Western Europe: the normalization, and even celebration, of grotesque symbols that collapse Palestinian identity into plane hijackings, rifles, and failed communist militant fantasies from the 1970s and the contemporary Islamist disasters from the present.  Who benefits from repeatedly associating Palestinians with plane hijackings, AK‑47s, and washed‑up extremists? Why would a major Norwegian arts institution choose to elevate these images when countless Palestinian humanitarians, thinkers, and community leaders embody a far more compelling vision of dignity, freedom, and a future beyond blood merchants who have sold “armed resistance” as a path to liberation? Instead of recycling sick, dehumanizing symbols that reinforce the stereotype of Palestinians as terrorists, imagine highlighting the humanity of Palestinians in Gaza and beyond; their love of life, their desire for peace, opportunity, and relief from decades of failed “resistance” narratives that Western radicals and diaspora Arab and Palestinian voices refuse to let go of.  Oslo is saturated with “pro‑Palestine” stickers, flyers, and signs. But if “solidarity” manifests as the glorification of terror and the reduction of Palestinians to violent caricatures, then this support does more harm than good. In that case, Norway’s sympathy is not solidarity at all; it is a disservice to the very people it claims to champion."

Yves Engler | Facebook - "Canada is facing a crisis of genocidal Jewish supremacy. Anyone who suggests there’s a crisis of antisemitism at this moment when Israel is trying to use that claim to change the narrative about its genocidal actions is enabling a racist lawless state. As Israel tortures Western activists and slaughters Lebanese in the hopes of scuttling the Iran ceasefire, genocidal Jewish supremacists are swinging their ideological stick wildly. And The Breach is berating leftists for not playing to those enabling Israel’s West Asia holocaust. In an unprecedented event, on Monday Mark Carney bemoaned the plight of a generally prosperous Canadian community. The prime minister’s racist message was on the front of Tuesday’s Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and National Post as well as in international media like Haaretz, Reuters and the New York Times (“Carney Says Canada Faces a ‘Crisis of Antisemitism’”, noted the NYT). After the initial reports, there was a slew of commentary such as “Conservatives slam Mark Carney’s speech on antisemitism” (Toronto Star), “Time for Carney to finally tackle the growing antisemitism in Canada” (Toronto Sun) and “The truth that Mark Carney avoided saying: Israel has become the International Jew” (Globe and Mail)  As per usual, the National Post took the racist, imperial, frenzy even further. A banner atop Wednesday’s front page described “Canada’s Jew-Hate Crisis” with that edition of the paper devoting seven articles to the topic, including “It’s simple. Islamic extremism is behind all the Jew hate.” On X National Post columnist Tristin Hopper was honest about the politics underlying the frenzy, noting “If Mark Carney wasn’t a colossal pussy, he would say ‘there's no Gazan genocide, there’s never been a Gazan genocide, and the purveyors of this obvious lie are destroying this country, Canada, before our eyes.’” As the dominant media hyped the anti-Palestinian/Lebanese/Iranian hysteria, The Breach published “The left’s opposition to antisemitism must be unconditional”. Almost entirely focused on criticizing selfless internationalists, Jordy Cummings’ column about Carney’s speech and the Zionists manufactured ‘crisis’ ignored how the rabbi who introduced the prime minister’s speech described the audience as “lovers of Israel” and said, “when Canadian leaders publicly condemn Israel, Canadian Jews pay the price.” Nor was there anything in The Breach piece about Carney (racistly) declaring “When you come to Canada, you bring your faith, your tradition, your language, your story. You leave behind your wars and your animosities.” That statement was made standing next to the synagogue’s Israeli flag. Nor was there anything about Israeli diplomats interfering in Canadian affairs by hyping antisemitism. The ambassador recently claimed Canada was “one of the centres of antisemitism globally” (we are an importer and “centre” of the prejudice). Nor did Cumming mention this weekend’s Walk for Israel where tens of thousands of mostly Toronto Jews will march for genocide. Nor was there anything about the private Jewish schools promoting the Zionist death cult. Or the summer camps that will soon take over the indoctrination process. But Cummings explicitly exculpated Canadian Jewry. He noted, “It is true that many Canadian Jewish people—for reasons having far more to do with false consciousness, fear, and indoctrination than having a murderous racist sensibility—see Israel as core to their Jewish identity in spite of, not because of the continued attacks on Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran.” A highly educated community in which almost all the institutions actively promote a supremacist genocidal faraway state simply has “false consciousness”. I guess parents paying $25,000 a year to send their kids to a private Toronto high school organizing “IDF Days” are just “fearful”. And that those marching this weekend in support of a state that’s killed dozens of colonized people basically every single day for three years are just expressing their “Jewish identity” not “a murderous racist sensibility”. A professor at York University, Cummings has been slagging the left about antisemitism for at least a decade (While the latest bugaboo is some leftist retweeting Tucker Carlson on genocide, ‘respectable’ leftists have been berating the Palestine left on “antisemitism” for decades). While Cummings doesn’t define what he means by “unconditional” opposition to antisemitism, one can surmise his position. He takes a gratuitous shot at well-known Leftist CUPE local 3903 for not joining the “antisemitism” frenzy. When the NDP brass blocked me from running in the party leadership race on a comprehensive anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist platform, Cummings published “No Defense of Yves Engler, Con Artist and Antisemite”. His screed began with “Really, fuck that guy”. A decade or so ago Jordy posted something to Facebook that stuck with me. He wrote something to the effect of “any notion of Jewish power is antisemitic”. While it’s not uncommon to see someone make such an absurd statement, it stood out because Montreal’s main Jewish community centre, which regularly advertises events in the Montreal Gazette, is named the Cummings Centre. In other words, Jordy’s family name represents an important institution of Jewish power in the city. Since then, I’ve wondered if he was related to the namesake of the institution and, apparently, he is. A Google search of “Jordy Cummings family background” came back with: “He is the grandson of the prominent Montreal Jewish philanthropists Jack and Norma Cummings. His grandmother, Norma Reitman Cummings, was a daughter of the family behind the historic Canadian clothing retailer Reitmans.” The AI mode response linked to an article about his grandma’s death that noted Jordy’s relation to former Senator Marc Gold. A former chair of the Canada-Israel Committee and Jewish Federations United Israel Appeal, Gold was appointed by Carney on Monday to the new Ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion. Jordy probably should have mentioned this apparent familial connection when writing about the new Equality Committee, but I understand why he wouldn’t draw attention to his family ties. Who would take seriously someone berating anti-genocide leftists as “antisemitic” who hasn’t even publicly criticized his family’s extensive funding of anti-Palestinian initiatives? The Breach should be embarrassed about publishing Jordy Cummings genocidal enabling hypocrisy."
Just when you thought the NDP couldn't sink any lower. He doesn't even bother to use the "Zionist" dog whistle here, but is honest that he's just anti-Semitic
Why are left wingers so threatened by human rights and fighting racism? Surely it cannot be because they are the real racists

Links - 1st July 2026 (2 - General Wokeness [including Pride])

Bret Weinstein on X - "No, it’s not “Pride Month.” Not for me, and not for millions of others. You’re welcome to be proud of whatever you want, in any month you like—because this is America. But what started in 1969 as a rebellion against persecution, morphed into a license for public depravity, and then morphed again into a weapon aimed at families and innocent children. Along the way it went from a day, to a week, and then a month and became official, and thereby effectively mandatory for all. Enough! If you’re gay and wondering why you are facing resistance now, the answer is that, with few exceptions, most of you didn’t stand up against the expansion and weaponization of “pride,” and the coercion that went with it. In that failure to resist, the gay community compromised any expectation that the rest of us should support “pride” at all, but especially the obscene display of hostility toward civilization and the families of which it is built, and for whom it exists. If your hackles are raised by the idea that civilization is about families, realize that families are how civilizations persist through time. Not everyone needs to form one, but we all must respect and protect them—It is the foundation of what it means to be civilized. For the small fraction of gays and lesbians who DID courageously stand up and resist expansion, coercion and the weaponization of “Pride,” I stand with you, and I have all along. But I won’t be celebrating, and I won’t be silent. It’s not too late to join the voices of reason and to confront the insanity of what “pride” has become."

Riley Donovan on X - "The two suspects in a pride flag burning at a Markham high school are Sepehr Abadar and Mahan Mohammad Radmard."
Jonathan Kay on X - "Sounds like a white supremacist Diagolon operation."

Cynical Publius on X - "One of the great power imbalances between conservatives and Leftists is the fact that our religion is religion, while their religion masquerades as politics. As such, we are governed by SCOTUS-determined “separation of church and state” and the Leftists are not. Case in point: “Pride Month.” This is a month-long celebration of the Left’s religion, but because it is not treated as a religion, federal/state/local governments everywhere can indulge in it. However, if we were to try and have governments celebrating “Jesus Month,” the lawsuits would be so thick you couldn’t cut through them with a rainbow chainsaw. I’m not sure how to solve this."
Christian Heiens 🏛 on X - "You solve it by accepting that all politics is theological and someone's worldview will always be promoted, so it may as well be ours. Wokeism is a religion that evolved to circumnavigate the First Amendment's ban on state religions. It's an ideological virus that could overcome the immune system the Founders constructed. Understanding that means that we can never go back to the old myth of neutrality. As John Adams warned over 200 years ago, the system only worked for a moral and religious people. The entire concept of "separation of church and state" only functioned so long as +90% of the population were devout Anglo-Protestants. It was never designed to work in a multi-cultural state where one side of the political divide can weaponize their political theology without ever admitting that they have a theology at all."

Protect and Teach on X - "It's not just schools and the police. The Essex Fire Service teaches local schools,Year 10, all about hate crime...how are they qualified to do this? ..parents think their child will learn about fire...Oh No...Your Tax pays for this. @nickwallis @ThePosieParker @JenKteach"
Jennifer Thetford-Kay on X - "Firefighters teaching Year 10 children “Hate Crime Awareness” complete with Progress Pride flags, protected characteristics, and reporting guides. Since when were these part of fire safety? This isn’t safeguarding. This is public services pushing ideology on children with taxpayer money. UK emergency services need to get back to core life-saving work."

Sports Illustrated on X - "Three Giants pitchers wore Bible verses on their Pride Night caps during Friday’s game. MLB has since issued a warning to them."
Payton Alexander on X - "100% of the recent backslide in support for gay rights is because of things like this, by the way. This is vile, totalitarian, vicious extremism. There is no possible justification for this. There is no natural end point here. Gay organizations urgently need to return to the principles of freedom of religion and association. This totalitarian impulse to crush anything short of complete submission is revolting."

Matt Whitlock on X - "The shift from “let us live our lives” to “you will wear the trans pride hat or it means you don’t believe gay people are full human beings” has been pretty staggering."
Clearly, if you refuse to wear pride attire or wave the flag it means you are a hateful bigot
The same people praising Colin Kaepernick and claiming right wingers were hypocrites who hated free speech are apoplectic over MLB players who subtly altered their caps

Monica_Harris on X - "This week, the DOJ reminded Major League Baseball of a simple constitutional principle: employers cannot selectively protect some forms of speech while suppressing others based on viewpoint. While MLB allowed — and even encouraged — players to display BLM messages on their uniforms, it barred players from displaying Bible verses during Pride Night. This is a violation of the First Amendment — full stop. As we celebrate Juneteenth, @fairforall_org urges @MLB to recommit to equal protection for all under the law. Civil rights are meaningless if they only apply to favored groups or causes. Freedom of expression and conscience belongs to all Americans, or it belongs to none."
Left wingers love discrimination when they approve of the cause, so they got very upset

'I can't get sponsorship'- why UK LGBT Pride events are disappearing (aka "Sponsorships cut, safe spaces lost: The quiet collapse of UK Prides") - "The reason is simple – money. The grassroots event costs £8,000 to pull off, financed by sponsors and funding bodies. ‘Sponsorship has very much disappeared,’ Sharan said. ‘Even the usual sponsors that email us going, “we want to get involved,” have gone silent.’ One funder rejected their application because Middlesex Pride had expressed solidarity with Palestine in its manifesto. Their manifesto said: ‘Middlesex Pride stands in solidarity with Palestine. Israel has enforced 75 years of apartheid upon Palestine and are currently commiting genocide in Gaza.’ Even when they said they would remove it, they were told: ‘we won’t give you money anyway because you’re too political.’ ‘We just didn’t realise how big the problem would be,’ she added. ‘We got almost zero funding from funding bodies, and we applied to everything. ‘With everything happening with trans rights, too, it seems no one wants to take a side.’... Local authorities need to rescue Pride events, no matter how small, Ben said, adding: ‘Pride is a reminder of the real and lifelong struggles we still face.’ The UK was once the most LGBTQ+ friendly in Europe, ranking number one on the Rainbow Map from 2011 to 2015. This year, it ranked 22nd. Map-maker ILGA-Europe told Metro that April’s ruling by the Supreme Court on the definition of ‘woman’ is among the reasons why the UK has fallen. Major Pride organisations, meanwhile, have even banned political parties from marching for not backing trans rights... ‘But where we are feeling the shift is in the rising visibility of far-right and fascist rhetoric.’ Figures like Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and US President Donald Trump are ’emboldening’ people to voice anti-LGBTQ+ hatred, he adds. For Sharan, it’s trans people who especially feel the impact of this. 'They’re finding it difficult to speak to anyone about their identity outside these safe spaces,’ she said of Pride events. ‘Without these smaller events, trans people will become more isolated.’ She worries that figures around trans people’s mental health – that two-thirds have experienced depression – will only increase. And that includes her team. ‘We’re a team of queer people, trans people, people of colour, sitting here asking,’ Sharan said, ‘”Does anyone give a sh*t?”‘"
From 2025. Of course, left wingers are complaining, because they think Pride events are entitled to money. Clearly, overreach in both trans and other items on the endless left wing wishlist is not their fault and only bigots would complain
Demanding that you're celebrated and trying to blackmail people into doing so is not narciccism and trying to silence others isn't censorship if it pushes the left wing agenda

Andy Ngo on X - "The WA State Patrol was made to apologize on microphone for its graduation ceremony triggering woke ideologues (like @GovBobFerguson) during the raising of the Trans-BLM-Pride flag at the state capitol. It was seen as blasphemous to the state religion."

Zoo Pride Week - Zoophilia Wiki - "Zoo Pride Week (also known as ZPW) is a world-wide holiday taking place from July 1st through July 7th annually. It was first announced in April 2019 on ZooVille.org by ZTHorse to create a worldwide zoophile awareness movement"

Zoophilia pride march in Germany : r/NoahGetTheBoat

Parents upset after student's suspension for wearing 'straight pride' shirt to N.B. school - "The Anglophone South School District and some people in the Belleisle school community are at odds over the suspension of a student for wearing a "straight pride" shirt during the school's Pride Week. Jaxon McDonald, a Grade 10 student at Belleisle Regional High School, was suspended for five days after he wore a T-shirt with the words "straight pride" on the front. Jaxon said he wasn't looking to offend with the shirt and wore it when inclusivity was the theme of the day's Pride events. "I wanted to wear my shirt to feel included, just like anyone else could wear any other type of shirt," he said in an interview. "So I wear my shirt on this week just to express who I am and what I believe in."... The petition said Jaxon was told by school administrators that wearing the shirt constituted a "hate crime," and for that he was suspended for five days... a couple of students whose parents had signed forms opting out of one of the Pride events were told by an administrator that they would either have to go to the event or leave school property... McDonald is a longtime volunteer with the school, helping the shop teacher with welding instruction and assisting with a club where students built a racing truck. The day Jaxon was suspended, McDonald was told he would no longer be allowed to volunteer with the school, which he believes is retaliation for his son's shirt... Education Minister Claire Johnson said she had been briefed on what happened but wouldn't say whether she thought the situation was properly handled by the school. She did say the wearing of a "straight pride" shirt at school is "problematic.""
Of course, left wingers blamed the parents. We are still told that heterophobia is not a thing
Left wingers still claim that Pride events are not compulsory in school
Keywords: mandatory pride events in school, compulsory pride events in school, unable to opt out of pride in school

vittorio on X - "the modern liberal was raised and cultivated in an environment purged of real debate, logic, and reason. brainwashed to deny what their own eyes can see and immersed in a monoculture where even minimal divergence from the party talking points meant total and eternal exile they cannot conceive of people using reason to argue against their pravda approved messages. reason and data are definitionally fascist and whoever tries to argue with them is an enemy. whenever someone tries to explain things with facts, their only reaction is scorn. their brains have lost the ability to process information that would make them deviate from the approved message. there's no justification for their beliefs other than dogmatic allegiance. they can only make this face and say something like "how dare you" or "thats racist" or "that's mean," but they can never tell you why you're wrong. so what comes out is the ad hominem and the appeals to feeling and authority, because their subjective reality cannot afford to be confronted with truth. and that's also why 𝕏 is so dangerous to them, why free speech is so "problematic", why online media has to be controlled "in the public interest." the libtard fears nothing more than truth, because truth would force them to accept that their entire worldview is built on a lie and that they've been led to believe in a fairy tale. they have been fed comforting lies and trained to live in a world decoupled from reality so when reality has to be faced (biological limits, sexual dimorphism, genetic differences), the cognitive dissonance becomes unbearable and their minds short-circuit the only way to keep functioning is to retreat deeper into the bubble, double down on the narrative, and reject any form of debate that involves logic or facts. that's also wwhy a lot of them end up medicating themselves just to tolerate the gap between what they were told and what actually exists. not by chance, the population with the highest reported incidence of mental illness are liberals: it's both true that modern libtardism makes you mentally ill and that mentally ill people find their delusions validated in it"

wanye on X - "It is not just that liberals don’t know what conservatives think. Not knowing what other people think would be like, you think they support immigration, but it turns out they’re against immigration. Liberals know that conservatives are against immigration. They’re not confused or uneducated about *what* conservatives think. What they lack is a model of how and why conservatives think as they do. What most of them cannot do is take the other side of the argument in a debate. When they model conservatives it basically reduces to, “well, I guess I’m just a big dumb idiot racist.” If you point this out, they do long threads about how you’re desperate for their approval, which is just another demonstration of the same phenomenon. The term that people use for this kind of understanding is, “theory of mind.” It’s not my term. I didn’t invent it. We could use some other term. But you need *some* term for this to distinguish it from merely not understanding what other people think. I don’t really see the utility of finding some other term. This term captures it pretty well. People know what it means. It seems to be working just fine.
Look, I can understand why, “they just don’t understand me, man” can get tedious and whiny, but,uh, they don’t. I don’t know what to tell you. It’s obvious that they don’t. And they never shut up about how smart and insightful and empathetic they are, so the dissonance this creates genuinely is kind of maddening."

JamesT on X - "Most people are stupid Wanye, this is true on the left and the right - but truer on the right. So yes, many liberals/leftists have a very poor theory of mind for conservatives, but that's really just a function of the fact that almost everybody is actually quite stupid."
wanye on X - "Right, but the median dumb guy conservative thinks of liberals mostly that they have big hearts, but they just simply don’t understand the unintended side effects of their policies. That’s actually a pretty sophisticated understanding of the situation. There’s no symmetry here. Liberals don’t have any theory of conservatives other than that they are dumb racists. The median liberal is baffled by conservatives. They can’t understand why anybody would think as they do. You really see this with the Elon Musk discourse where they are very clearly shocked that anybody would defend the idea of a trillionaire. They literally cannot think of any argument for why somebody would do that. They tweet all the time that they, “cannot understand why anybody would defend a trillionaire.” It’s not that they don’t know what conservatives think. It’s that they cannot think of even one argument in favor of what conservatives think. They have no model whatsoever for what conservatives think."

Covfefe Anon on X - "The actual joke here is not that liberals lack a theory of mind for anyone on the right (they do) while the average person on the right has one for liberals (they do, it's mistaken). It's that lib lack a theory of mind *for themselves*. Their views of themselves and why they believe what they believe are entirely incorrect - they view their beliefs as "rational" and "following the evidence" but their actual beliefs are more simply described by "attempts to match the beliefs of the hivemind" and the hivemind changes beliefs based on if those beliefs produce power. The simplest example (and there are others) is everything around covid where it went from "it's racist to worry about a disease - hug a Chinese person" to "shut everything down" to "racism is the real public health emergency" all following purely from the logic of power. If a liberal had a good theory of mind *for himself* he would see himself as so cynical that he couldn't function as a good liberal - just saying that this is how they form views is enough to disqualify anyone from taking their views seriously. Them lacking a theory of mind for anyone on the right is just a natural consequence of this"

Matt Walsh on X - "The three most egregious body cam videos over the past decade, where cops unequivocally murdered someone or left them to die, are Henry Nowak, Daniel Shaver, and Tony Timpa. These victims have a few things in common. No riots. No murals in their honor. And they were all white."

Christian Heiens 🏛 on X - "Ever notice how the Constitution was utterly powerless to stop everything from COVID lockdowns to the explicitly anti-White/anti-Male DEI regime of the last dozen years, but it's now constantly being invoked to defend everything from giving citizenship to the children of illegals and CCP spies to sending unlimited sums of taxpayer money to the Progressive NGO complex?"

Reaction to Sir David Amess' murder says a lot about the modern media - "It's a mark of the prevalence of the anti-Enlightenment philosophies of Rousseau and Marcuse that one of the few pieces of information available to the public on the afternoon of Friday 15th October was that David Amess was an anti-abortionist. When an inexplicable random murder occurs, a selfish type of defence mechanism kicks in; most murder victim and perpetrator are known to each other. Do we know anyone likely to kill us because of our unfashionable views? No, of course not. And after all, unlike the less developed moral universe of many around the world from parts of the US to Russia to Somalia, we don't respond to murder with a sense of vengeance. Instead, we seek to understand that the perpetrator may have suffered himself and be as much as a victim as the slain, because this concept in itself makes us human. Plus, what if in this age of intersectionality where tribe is paramount, there are repercussions? Rage and, even more reprehensible, objectivity gets us nowhere. Better distance ourselves from the victim in as many ways possible. Might he even got what he deserved? A creature of the establishment whose advocacy of neo-liberal capitalism inflicted much privation on the developing world. The editorial offices of mainstream media outlets must have collectively slammed on the breaks when the facts became clear; a socially conservative, white male Christian politician was murdered by a radical Islamist in a Church. There was a grim predictability that the BBC would struggle with this, but the depths to which information was deemed tolerable for consumption by an untrustworthy public breaks new bounds of deceit. Within twenty-four hours we knew more about David Amess views on abortion, Thatcherism and support for Brexit than any tangible information about the killer. He was initially described as a 25-year-old, then a 'British National'. That is unusual. Wayne Cousins or Jake Davison were never described as 'British Nationals'. We know that Jake Davison once liked one of Donald Trump's tweets and had issues with women. Though the media didn't mention it, one suspects David Amess's killer's ideological prescription for women's role in society would be less benign than either Wayne Cousins or Jake Davison. We know the politician, in the photos attending his daughter's wedding, appears the embodiment of patriarchy and establishment, and much can be learnt about the mindset of a man who poses with a Union flag. But his murderer? Initially nothing (though we are now slowly starting to see more of a picture emerge). Amess had an identity which fitted neatly into a despised political tribe, 'Brexiteer', whereas his murderer was merely a 'British National'. Later, as he was identified the media quickly explained that his father was a diplomat who had worked against radical Islamists in Somalia and as far as anyone knew this was a nice, well to do family. The average house price in the area is £1.5 million. Lockdown had forced the lad onto the internet where social media radicalised him, and such is the Prime Minister's belligerent attitude during PMQs it is inevitable a misguided youngster would see it entirely permissible to attack an MP. In effect this was somebody who could be me or you or your brother or son. As the narrative ran its preordained course, interviews with Brendan Cox were published and Kim Leadbetter's partner reportedly asked her to step down from her role as MP. This and David Amess' opposition to abortion, no doubt informed by his Christianity, were crucial in shaping the Marcusian reality. The Guardian, another outlet that must have found it exceedingly difficult to report on the attack, tried to level things up by headlining President Macron's apology for the bloody murder of Parisian Algerians – 60 years ago. More stories of asylum seekers being wronged by the British State appeared on their frontpage by Monday morning. Opinion pieces mentioned threats to female MPs, but nothing comparable to the thirst with which they consumed George Floyd's death and how this explained a wider story of White Oppression. The media and progressive politicians will let this story fade away. Hopefully the funeral will appear stately, formal, almost abstract from most normal people's lives. Give him a plaque, having already made Southend a city, then let him reside alongside all those other dead white men who haunt British politics. No days of rage, knee taking or murals. No weaving of his tale into educational packages. According to the Mayor of London, David Amess merely "passed away". The only truth we can draw from this is what kind of a person David Amess was; remember, he was against abortion."
From 2021. The contrast with Jo Cox's murder was instructive where, among other things, politicising murders is good when it pushes the left wing agenda

The strange reluctance to discuss Islamist terror | The Spectator - "Ten years ago this week, the British MP Jo Cox was murdered. In his post on social media platform X marking the anniversary of that horrifying crime, Keir Starmer writes, in his very first line, that her killer was ‘a far-right terrorist’. Quite reasonably. It is obviously legitimate, indeed important, to identify the worldview motivating acts of political violence. The problem is that those, like Starmer, who are quickest to invoke ideology in some cases consistently refuse to do so in others. Specifically, when the ideology in question is Islamist in nature. After another MP, Sir David Amess, was murdered by an Islamist fanatic in 2021, Starmer did not describe the killer in the same ideological terms, instead speaking about the ‘poison of extremism’ more broadly. In another post on the anniversary of Amess’s death he made no reference whatsoever to the worldview motivating the murder. Instead, he stated, in far vaguer terms, that ‘violence and threats to our democracy will never prevail’. Note the difference in the language used: ‘far-right terrorist’ versus generalised, abstract ‘violence’. These are, obviously, deliberate choices. There has, admittedly, been some change in the past few months, with Starmer and his fellow Labour politicians at long last begrudgingly using terms like ‘Islamist’ and ‘jihadist’ on rare occasions. But this is not some voluntary embrace of honesty. Following the deadly attack on Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester (by a man literally called ‘Jihad’), for instance, Starmer condemned anti-Semitism and terrorism while carefully avoiding any discussion of the attacker’s religious background or the theological factors involved. It was only after mounting criticism, and following a series of high-profile anti-Jewish attacks that made the usual evasions increasingly untenable, that he changed tack. It’s worth making clear at this point that Starmer is not an outlier here. He exemplifies a broader tendency in elite discourse. Across Britain, and indeed the West more broadly, liberal politicians, journalists and public figures have spent years engaging in the same rhetorical sleight of hand. When confronted with far-right extremists, they speak with little hesitation about the ideas in question, often seeking to draw wider conclusions about the guilt or complicity of the broader conservative movement. Progressives throw terms like ‘far right’ around with remarkable abandon, and often incorrectly, as a political weapon with which to smear opponents and delegitimise populist-right positions that enjoy a substantial degree of popular support. When confronted with Islamism, however, the pattern is very different. They obfuscate, deflect, and retreat into vague terminology which leaves the uninformed listener none the wiser as to the nature of the brutality in question. This habit is widespread. Sadiq Khan routinely warns about the dangers of the ‘far right’. He speaks of ‘far-right violence’, ‘far-right extremism’ and ‘far-right misinformation’. Yet when confronted with attacks carried out in the name of Islam, we suddenly hear about ‘hatred’, ‘extremism’, ‘division’ and ‘radicalisation’; rarely about the specific belief system involved. In 2019, in the aftermath of a spate of mass casualty jihadist atrocities in Britain, the Labour party released a manifesto that referred to the far right by name but failed to directly mention Islamic extremism. This is not a distinctively British phenomenon, either. Following an Isis-inspired attack on a Hanukkah event near Bondi Beach that claimed 15 lives, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was criticised for carefully structuring his remarks to avoid any mention of ‘Muslims’, ‘Islam’ or ‘Islamic extremism’, while nevertheless invoking the spectre of ‘right-wing extremist groups’ more than once. This sort of deflection, obfuscation and selective outrage is not merely cowardly, it amounts to gaslighting on a grand scale. It asks people to accept a partial and misleading characterisation of crimes explicitly directed against the core values and institutions of democratic life. Jihadism remains, by some distance, the most significant terrorist threat facing Western societies. Yet the underlying motivations behind that violence are, in certain influential quarters, discussed less openly than those of movements that are vastly less deadly. The result is not greater social cohesion or public trust. It is the opposite. People can observe the double standard for themselves. They can see that some ideologies are named immediately while others are obscured behind layers of euphemism and abstraction. And once people conclude that they are being misled about something so obvious, they inevitably begin to wonder what else they are not being told."