"I Am Lindsay Clancy" — What the Women in Pink Actually Believe

"I Am Lindsay Clancy" — What the Women in Pink Actually Believe
Hundreds gathered outside a courthouse for a mother who strangled her three children. The slogan on their shirts explains more than the trial does.

On August 20th, hundreds of women stood outside a Massachusetts courthouse in pink shirts and prayed for a mother who strangled her three children. Countless more showed their support online. What follows is my attempt to work out what a person has to already believe before they can absolve a murderous mother of moral culpability. 

"Madness is rare in individuals — but in groups it is the rule."

— Friedrich Nietzsche

The Crowd That Chose the Killer

What happens when a society’s institutions adopt an ideology that portrays one sex as inherently flawed and “toxic,” while casting the other as unquestionably virtuous?

The reaction to Lindsay Clancy’s trial for the murder of her three children gives us some disturbing insights.

At first, feminist TikTok questioned her guilt, hypothesizing that the husband was the real killer — based on “forensic astrology,” one reading of which “basically states that he did it… & drugged her.” Nearly two thousand readers gave the comment a thumbs up. The hypothesis being that “Leo’s don’t kill. Geminis do.” Thousands more found this to be compelling. Another argues this is evident beyond doubt: “oh he’s a GEMINI? jail for him, that’s all i need to know.”

An entire movement grew out of these TikTok and Facebook posts. Users live-streamed the trial and dissected testimony — through their rigorous process of baseless speculation — posting about "Justice for Lindsay Clancy," how they "Stand With Lindsay," and even identifying with the murderous mother by stating "I Am Lindsay Clancy." This led to a trend of mothers posting videos with their children captioned "Same, Lindsay."

While you’d be justified in chalking these responses up to astrology induced retardation, I think there is a more plausible explanation. If you have accepted the presupposition that women and virtue are inextricably linked — which so much of our political and academic class has — then all arguments downstream have to fortify that belief. Information that reinforces the belief is accepted without questioning, while anything that contradicts it is ignored or viciously attacked.

Although, there's just one problem: these delusional hypotheses have hit a brick wall, considering Clancy admits to the killings. So while the astrological readings must be dispensed with, the underlying belief that created them remains. Hence why the movement now focuses on bolstering Clancy's legal argument that she experienced a psychotic break induced by postpartum psychiatric disease aggravated by overmedication. Perhaps true, but as we can tell by the appeal to astrology, truth isn't what is being selected for. Instead, the selection mechanism is whether the argument absolves Clancy of moral culpability.

The mob psychology around this case became visible on August 20th when hundreds of supporters, many in pink, gathered outside the courthouse. Shirts read “Believe,” “She Needed Help,” and “Peace for Lindsay.” Supporters made heart shaped hands, prayed, and claimed it could have been any one of them.

The sympathy and support is not merely emotional. Tens of thousands of people have resonated with Clancy deeply enough to send over $1 million to her parents — nearly 31,000 donations in roughly a week. The campaign explicitly disclaims any position on the criminal case, stating its purpose is to help her parents rebuild the financial stability they sacrificed over the past three years. It was created by a TikTok mother with her father’s permission.

I — like those practicing “forensic astrology” — have little interest in the granular details of the trial. The reaction and debates that have followed the case are what I find far more important.

One (female) X user claimed that “after watching the trial play out, not only am I convinced we should repeal the 19th Amendment, but we should also limit women’s interactions online.” To which another woman replied, “imagine applying this logic to men. Every time a man commits an act of violence, should we reconsider men’s voting rights? Restrict their internet access? Of course not because we understand that one individual’s actions do not justify stripping civil liberties from an entire sex.”

Except there are many problems with this counter-reasoning. First, not all acts of violence are equal in nature. If a man kills a home intruder threatening his family, he’s rightfully declared a hero. If a man kills his family, he’s rightfully declared a monster. Second, the act of violence committed by Clancy may have been individual, but the support is collective. The mass sympathy for the individual’s monstrous actions cannot be ignored.

Let’s reframe the scenario. Imagine an ex-NFL player suffering from CTE brutally murdered his three children. One could understand his legal team leaning on the violence inducing brain trauma as a defence. Except it’s inconceivable that hundreds of men would show up in person, backed by thousands — if not millions — online, to paint him as the primary victim to be empathized with.

Even if one was to empathize with the CTE sufferer, it’d likely come in a similar manner to Of Mice and Men. Lennie Small is an enormous, physically powerful man with the mind and emotional understanding of a young child. He starts stroking the hair of Curley’s wife, who then panics and screams, causing Lennie to become frightened. This oversized man-child responds by shaking her too forcefully and accidentally breaking her neck. George — Lennie’s closest companion — realizes that Lennie cannot understand or control his own strength and that similar tragedies will keep happening. He also knows that an angry mob led by Curley will seek revenge for the dead woman in a brutal fashion. To spare him from torture or capture, George comforts him by describing their dream farm, especially the rabbits Lennie hopes to tend to, and while imagining that happy future, George shoots him in the back of the head.

That is about all the sympathy I have for someone who murders the innocent and defenceless — much less children who look to you as their primary source of love and protection. As the book depicts, the collective response to such a murder — even if the murderer is truly mentally incapable of understanding such actions — is likely to be death or confinement until death. If Of Mice and Men instead depicted a mob declaring “We’re just like Lennie” or “Stand With Lennie,” the reader would not only question whether the townspeople went randomly insane but whether they should face the same fate as Lennie.

This is not even a men vs. women issue. Rather, it is yet another litmus test for sane vs. insane. A society which affords more sympathy to murderers than their victims — even gifting their family a million dollars — is undeniably morally corrupt.

When the unthinkable becomes debatable — whether it be the Lindsay Clancy support, the celebrations of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, or downplaying the institutional failures behind Iryna Zarutska’s murder — a civilization’s immune system is surely suppressed to a deadly degree.

The Women in Pink

The online and in-person support of Lindsay Clancy is best viewed as a mob — or what Gustave Le Bon would call a crowd. What defines a mob is not its physical assembly but a shared psychological state. The women supporting the child murderer say themselves that this stems from identification with Clancy. They do not see a woman separate from themselves but a reflection — “I Am Lindsay Clancy.”

What can explain such a horrid statement? The current feminist explanation is that mothers commonly face intrusive thoughts in the postpartum period. This may be true, and frequent, but whether someone experiences intrusive thoughts does not absolve them of the moral responsibility for acting on them.

A classic Bill Burr bit illustrates this perfectly: “I have a lot of f**ked up thoughts. You ever drive down the street and see thirty people and you just think [to run them over]?” The crowd erupts in laughter and applause, signalling they too have had similar intrusive thoughts. Burr continues: “You don’t do it, you just think it. That’s what separates the psychos from the functioning psychos.”

Every single person who is being honest with themselves will admit they've had unconscionable intrusive thoughts. Yet am I now expected to extend sympathy to someone who acts on the thought of mowing down a sidewalk full of people with their car? Of course not. Deciding whether to act on those thoughts is the defining difference between a monster and everyone else. We are only expected to elicit sympathy because Clancy is a woman. Not one of these feminists would return the moral leeway if it were a man.

Now I want you to consider the possibility of a feedback loop being created in the fallout of this issue. Social status is very important to humans. It is one of our fundamental drives. We first want to fit into a group and then to be held in high regard by that group. What do you think happens when the price of admission to a group is admitting to or vocalizing your intrusive thoughts? Even further, what happens when that group awards attention and status to those who have the worst thoughts — up to and including murdering their children? Do you think this will lead to fewer or more people within that group having those thoughts? Do you think this will increase or decrease the likelihood of someone acting on those thoughts? Now consider those in the group seeing a seemingly endless supply of emotional and financial support flowing to those who do act.

This is not to say we are going to see COVID-level mass hysteria of otherwise normal mothers now murdering their children, but I would argue that this creates a social environment where the small share of demented mothers now see an opportunity to remove their mask of sanity and get rewarded for it.

It’s truly terrifying that we’ve reached a state where this needs to be said, but if we cannot make clear moral distinctions between the universal experience of having intrusive thoughts and the very particular experience of acting on those thoughts then we are doomed.

Feminist Doublethink

The proclivity for TikTok feminists to argue that Lindsay Clancy cannot be held criminally responsible because her postpartum intrusive thoughts amounted to psychosis not only directly undercuts their entire movement but is also an example of doublethink. Orwell defines doublethink as the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs as true, signalling the erosion of critical thought.

The same movement that insisted the husband was the real killer and Lindsay could not have done this because of her astrology chart, pivoted to insisting she cannot be held responsible for having done it. The belief that women are inherently innocent remains, the argument required to protect it is what changes.

Let’s consider the following propositions:

1. Women are just as rational, competent, and emotionally stable as men. Therefore, they deserve equal social and political representation.

2. What Clancy experienced is a normal and relatable part of motherhood — "Same, Lindsay," "I Am Lindsay Clancy" — and that experience is sufficient to remove her legal responsibility for killing her three children.

These two beliefs cannot coexist. I’m not here to tell you whether one or neither of these beliefs is true, but to point out that they can’t both be true.

Note that the second proposition also contradicts the defence it claims to support. Clancy’s lawyers argue particularity by alleging this happened to a single woman, with a rare disorder, and a cascade of medication issues. The movement argues universality, claiming it could have been any one of them. The crowd is taking the the argument of a rare-disease in a specific case to make a claim about all women.

Schrödinger’s feminist is a term popularized by meme culture, but it maps onto the Lindsay Clancy story quite well. The movement portrays women as simultaneously empowered and victimized, choosing whichever state best suits their immediate advantage or argument.

Vying for political power or career opportunities? Women are strong, independent, and capable. Giving in to intrusive thoughts and murdering your children? Women are victims of postpartum depression and cannot be held morally liable for their actions.

AOC recently referred to Woke 1.0 as “crazy.” Well, if this is Woke 2.0, it’s genuinely psychotic, and it will continue to get worse unless we muster the courage to stop giving in to the emotional blackmail.

If women want equality of representation, then they need to exhibit equality of responsibility. If society is to return to sanity it must accept that men and women have both success and failure modes, and stop pretending one sex is toxic by default while the other innocent by nature.

 

 

 

 

Links - 1st October 2026 (Jason Arday)

Meme - Melissa Chen @MsMelChen: "The meltdown from the British left after Jason Arday is pure derangement. Even American leftists refuse to defend the plagiarist. They learned the hard way to keep their most unhinged woke ideas private after watching them deliver Trump 2.0
The bio of the person who shared it. Honestly thought it was a parody account
"Queer disabled gender-fluid vegan antiwork Marxist ecofeminist (any pronouns)""
"Where is the line Ill: Microfascism and Fascism. The billionaire-funded squadrisimo came for Jason Arday. We didn't do enough to stop it. Now he is dead.
SEAN JOHNSON ANDREWS
I don't know how many of you outside of academia have been following the horrific hounding of the Black British Cambridge Scholar Jason Arday, his resignation from his post at the university, or his tragic death - apparently by suicide - last week. But from"

Axel Folio, PhD, White Tears Distiller 🪁 on X - "Appreciation post for the folks staying on the necks of journalists media outlets, racist scholars & a moronic public that led to the death of Prof Arday. No stopping until his family gets justice. He deserved justice."
Donna-Louise on X - "Anyone else have issue with this post about “staying on the necks” of those who outed the lies of Jason Arday?! Wow. 😮 George Floyd, anyone?"

Donna-Louise on X - "The Rot in the Faculty at Cambridge
A professor whose claims collapsed under scrutiny. A colleague who called Western education a threat. A panel that prioritised ideology. And a leadership that treated questions as the problem. The first four pieces set out the claims, the evidence against them, the resignation, and the immediate defence that followed — the solidarity letter, the Guardian framing, the quiet withdrawal of signatures, and the insistence that scrutiny itself was the problem. This fifth piece is about what the institution that employed him knew, what it did, and what it is only now being forced to examine."

Sander Sassen on X (Translated from Dutch) - "You'd expect a university professor to be able to reason well. Is Tijl De Bie then the exception to the rule? He proclaims that anyone who defends Cofnas but dropped Pettit is the gravedigger of academic freedom.  As if an academic who posts on X that it's time "to finish what the Palestinians started on October 7" and that Israel "must be destroyed once and for all" is actually doing the same thing as a researcher who publishes studies on heredity and IQ.  Be honest for once, @TijlDeBie . Isn't that just a clumsy attempt to equate a pro-Palestine activist who incited students, contributed to an atmosphere of intimidation and violence on campus, and constantly targeted Israel and the Jews, with the man who dares to name uncomfortable data? That's not remotely comparable.  Pettit crossed the boundaries of free speech by cheering on and encouraging violence and terror. Cofnas crossed an entirely different line: that of the woke ideology that reigns on campus. Of course you don't want to see that difference, because then you'd have to critically examine your own moral self-image—or worse, start questioning the woke ideology.  One thing, however, is not up for debate, Tijl. You can't use academic freedom as a shield for those who express support for violence and terror. For those who call to "finish what began on October 7": a massacre of Jews. Anyone who does that isn't concerned with academic freedom at all, but with promoting an ideology. And those two things are not compatible.  Clear now, Tijl?"

The Jason Arday vigil was everything psychologists warn against - spiked - "We have known for centuries that suicide can be contagious. After Goethe published The Sorrows of Young Werther in 1774, reports emerged of young men imitating his suicidal hero. It became known as the Werther effect. The removal of the shame and secrecy that once surrounded suicide was welcome. But it created another problem: how do you talk openly and compassionately about suicide without encouraging contagion? That is why, back in 1989, suicidologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, public-health officials and journalists gathered in the United States to establish recommendations to reduce suicide contagion. Their conclusions were explicit. They warned against glorifying people who died by suicide and against presenting suicide as a means of accomplishing an end. They also cautioned against public eulogies and memorials that might give vulnerable people the impression that society was honouring the suicide, rather than mourning the death. For these reasons, the vigil for Jason Arday in Trafalgar Square last week should never have taken place. Stand Up To Racism organised this vigil in order to remember Arday and, presumably, to highlight the dangers of racism. But in doing so, it risked encouraging copycat suicides. Thousands of people gathered beneath Nelson’s Column for the Arday vigil. There were flowers, speeches and placards reading ‘Rest in Power Professor Jason Arday’. Speakers presented Arday not simply as a man whose death was desperately sad, but as a victim and even a martyr. A villain was identified – Nathan Cofnas, one of the researchers who drew attention to Arday’s plagiarism – and he was booed by the crowd.The irresponsibility of this is almost impossible to overstate. People who are suicidal fantasise about exactly this kind of overblown romanticisation of how they will be mourned, appreciated and valorised after death. They imagine everyone crying their eyes out at their funeral... In 1994, five years after the release of the media guidelines on suicide, Kurt Cobain killed himself. There were enormous fears about what would happen. Cobain was almost the perfect candidate for romanticisation – young, beautiful, troubled, world-famous and an icon of alienated youth. Yet the response was remarkably restrained. Researchers subsequently found that the expected rise in suicides did not occur, although calls to crisis lines increased substantially, especially in Seattle, where he died. It is believed that the unusually responsible media and public-health response may have helped. The response deliberately worked against making his suicide heroic. Twenty years later, when Robin Williams died by suicide in 2014, the media environment had changed. Social media had ridden roughshod over the old media guidelines. Researchers subsequently found 1,841 more suicides in the United States between August and December 2014 than their statistical model predicted, an increase of almost 10 per cent...  Arday’s treatment was not unique. Others have come through similar public maulings. James Frey endured an onslaught after parts of his supposedly autobiographical A Million Little Pieces were exposed as invented. Rachel Dolezal and Belle Gibson became international objects of ridicule when their fabrications came to light. More recently, The Salt Path controversy had many of us glued to our screens as another inspirational life story was ripped apart... The response to Arday’s death was depressingly predictable. The academics went to war against the journalists. The journalists retaliated and turned on academia. The right blamed DEI while the left blamed the right...  people choose suicide for a whole raft of reasons – typically, many different issues have converged. It is therefore not only dangerous but also inaccurate to reduce his death to a simple morality tale in which journalists criticised him and he died as a consequence... we should never turn his suicide into his apotheosis. We should never give suicidal people reason to believe that death is the moment when the world will finally love them."

Jason Arday and the Merciless Lie - "Arday laid claim to athletic as well as intellectual greatness, including the clearly ludicrous alleged feat of running six hundred miles in six days. Yet he wasn’t without athletic ability. Schoolmates remember him as a talented football goalkeeper. Before setting his sights on higher education, he worked as a PE teacher. What might his future have been, had he been content with the little life he was given? What fulfillment might he have found, had he believed that even our modest talents bear a divine stamp, and that we can offer them up to the Creator who delights over us as we are, not as we imagine ourselves in our daydreams?"

What Ghent University Just Taught Every Academic Whistleblower - "Ghent is instead suspending Cofnas because his expressed public views are misaligned with the university’s values and therefore “creates a reputational risk”. This is not how academic freedom should work.  At this point, the timeline of events over the past month is clear... The statement by Ghent on their suspension of Cofnas is bizarre for anyone who cares about academic freedom. It’s framed as a statement on the university’s values rather than anything specific to Cofnas’ writings or any alleged misconduct that would warrant a disciplinary investigation. The statement then goes on to specify that Ghent University’s view of academic freedom is predicated on specific values... It is true that academic freedom is not unlimited. Yet, it should alarm every academic who holds any potentially contentious view on any subject that a university such as Ghent is openly declaring that academic freedom is only protected insofar as one’s publicly expressed values are aligned with the university’s.  Ghent is suspending Cofnas because they don’t like his views. In a leaked letter that appeared online the day after the public statement, university officials detail the reasons for his suspension by citing (among many disputable things) “offenses committed in private life” that argue his views on race and intelligence “may be interpreted” as racism, which is against the university’s values. This is despite Cofnas being hired in the spring with years of published writing on group differences in intelligence. His hiring at Ghent this past spring drew a petition with more than 2,000 signatures within weeks (with a new petition now appearing for him to be dismissed, along with a counter letter to keep him). Ghent defended the hire anyway, with Ghent rector Petra De Sutter (now ironically) stating at the time that “Dissenting opinions are allowed to exist and debate must take place at a university. It is primarily up to experts and fellow researchers to test ideas, criticise them and, where necessary, contradict them.” The only thing that has changed since March is that Cofnas’s views are now too big a liability to the university’s reputation for them to defend, and therefore now he must go.  Now with Ghent’s decision to suspend Cofnas, academia should be alert to the precedent such an event leaves for scholars who criticize the work of other scholars. First, if you express views that are unpopular, could cause “tension,” or “may be interpreted” in any type of way, keep your mouth shut. Second, such unpopular views are subject to the heckler’s veto via public pressure campaigns, so again, keep your mouth shut. The suspension of Cofnas only serves to entrench academic self-censorship and erodes trust in the academy’s ability to reform itself. If academics cannot trust that alleging academic misconduct about another scholar won’t cost them their job, then who is going to risk sticking their neck out to criticize scholarship when warranted? Criticism of scholarship comes with the job, and in today’s environment, that is certainly going to play out online, especially when the scholar being criticised is a publicly lauded academic at a nation’s top university. To academics who think public criticism of a lauded scholar at a prestigious university is too harsh, consider how this situation could have played out differently. Had the original Times Higher Education story run, backed by an even more extensive dossier of alleged plagiarism, the scandal would likely have broken anyway, just under a different byline. Outlets like Retraction Watch exist specifically to call out academic misconduct — as they should. Scholars, no matter their background, personal characteristics, or public standing, are subject to scholarly standards and peer criticism. That is what happened here: at root, this is a case of one scholar exposing another’s misconduct. Academics need to police our own scholarship and take the lead on intentional reform to build back public trust in scholarship. And if we don’t, we’re handing the reins over to legislators and politicians eager to regulate campuses themselves. For the scholarly record and the institutions that safeguard it to be trustworthy, they must be seen as places that uphold scholarly standards to generate knowledge that can be trusted."

‘Frankly, He Has Been Killed’: Angry Scholars From UK’s Top Academics’ Union Blame Jason Arday’s Death on Racist Mob, as ‘Race Realist’ Who Ignited the Firestorm Is Suspended - "As anger grows among the left over the apparent suicide last week of former Cambridge professor Jason Arday, an influential band of activists within Great Britain’s largest academics’ union is moving to fuel that raw sentiment into action. These academics—from the University and College Union—want to shield other black academics from scrutiny from what they view as a racist, right-wing conspiracy... the UCU Solidarity Movement, an activist caucus within the academics’ union, held a virtual organizing meeting... the angry scholars repeatedly denounced the attacks on Arday as the product of a racist, right-wing mob seeking to drive blacks out of the academy.  The meeting’s organizer, Sean Wallis, a principal research fellow in English at University College London, or UCL, suggested time was of the essence. He already knew, he said, of one black British academic facing scrutiny for alleged plagiarism.  The central purposes of the meeting were to draft a public statement on the Arday tragedy and develop a toolkit to help the union respond if black academics are targeted with attacks on their credibility. Wallis further proposed a UCU hotline for members "who have been threatened."...   "I think there is a campaign going on" against black academics in Britain. He said there is a conspiracy to "target black colleagues because politically that is what they want to do. They want to hound out our black brothers and sisters." He further said, "I am convinced that’s already happening"—in Britain—"because I’ve seen it with my own eyes."  "Jason is not the only person who is being targeted right now," Wallis said, claiming that a purported Substacker had put an unnamed academic’s thesis through plagiarism-detection software. This, Wallis said, evidently "found some overlap with some other PhD’s, which had been written a few years previously."... attendees appeared primed to regard scrutiny of black academics as illegitimate almost by default. Wallis said the group challenges racism "even when it’s disguised as concern for standards."... Eva Hartmann, a university associate professor in Cambridge’s education department, where Arday served until resigning August 5, smiled and gave a thumbs up in response...   Lyes Kahouadji, a chemical engineering researcher at Imperial College London, who is non-white and whom Wallis appointed to chair the meeting, later replied to Wallis that "it’s really important what you mentioned about textual overlap and plagiarism." Kahouadji insisted that plagiarism is "completely different, and academics are supposed to come forward and say, ‘No, this is not plagiarism.’" Regarding Arday, he continued: "It’s really a shame that people who are supposed to protect from this plagiarism fantasy didn’t speak up."  All of the academic institutions where Wallis, Kahouadji, and Hartmann work, as well as Liverpool John Moores University, from which Arday received his Ph.D., clearly and explicitly define plagiarism as including the lifting of text without clear attribution... Arday himself did not dispute that he had lifted text, blaming his autism, but attributed the plagiarism accusations to a cynical racist plot against black academics... the meeting’s attendees appeared to overlook the fact that Arday has more recently been credibly accused of plagiarism and academic fraud involving multiple academic papers—written at multiple institutions—in addition to his thesis... [it is] alleged he stole another academic’s research and fabricated data... extra-academic issues were never mentioned at the UCU meeting. Jeffrey Vernon, a principal teaching fellow in postgraduate medicine at Imperial College, was an outlier in his skepticism of Liverpool John Moores’s findings. He wrote in the meeting’s chat that it was "clear" that the university "did not supervise him properly." He said, "They were anxious to find ‘no problem’ and move on." No one responded to this counterpoint... "The agenda of far-right ideologues who attacked Jason Arday while openly boasting that their goal is to create a ‘meritocracy’ in Higher Education by chasing Black scholars out of academia should be confronted, challenged and exposed, instead it was amplified by the right wing and liberal press."  The academic-activists’ statement also points to the "common struggle against institutional racism and management failure in Cambridge and beyond." It commits the group to defending "colleagues and students from racist harassment and victimization and building an anti-racist movement on our campuses and in the streets."  Vernon was also among a minority who noted that not all media coverage was so deserving of fierce condemnation. Pointing to Retraction Watch, which was one of the first to publish an article on Jason Arday after Cofnas last month, Vernon wrote in the chat, "I don’t think that can be called right wing, non-academic, or unscientific." He continued, "I don’t want us to go overboard on the ‘right wing racist’ argument."  At least one of the meeting’s attendees envisioned a counteroffensive against James Orr, who is an associate professor of philosophy of religion at the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge and the head of policy for Reform UK. Orr has been accused of racism, including for expressing negative attitudes toward Palestinians.  Talat Ahmed, a senior lecturer in South Asian history at the University of Edinburgh, said if she were a student at Cambridge, she would want "a mass student insurgent campaign to get rid of that racist fucker from my institution."   Decrying those who endorse race science in particular, Wallis compared them to climate denialists and said of scholarship that validates such a theory: "Academic freedom is not the freedom to publish garbage."   The meeting’s attendees also argued that Arday was egregiously held to a higher standard because of his race. Megan Povey, a professor of food physics at the University of Leeds, said that, by comparison, "you see these white academics getting away with murder, literally."  Povey, who is transgender, further drew a parallel to the darkening climate surrounding trans issues in Britain. "You know the right is going for trans because it’s a wedge issue," Povey said. "They’re trying to pull back gains that have been made over the years by Black Lives Matter and so on."  Petra De Sutter, the Ghent rector who, according to Cofnas, suspended him, is also transgender. De Sutter was also found to have drafted an inaugural address with the aid of generative AI, which inserted multiple "hallucinated" quotes, the Brussels Times reported in January. In the speech, De Sutter had warned to "not blindly trust" AI.   The activist-academic group was especially angry at journalists. Hartmann called for academia to assert its authority and preempt reporters’ efforts to use their own "crude text comparison" to examine plagiarism accusations (as Cofnas and multiple news outlets did with Arday’s texts). Wallis noted that one member "rightly said" in the chat that journalists themselves plagiarize. "They all do," Wallis said emphatically. "They all—yes!" Kahouadji replied. Sardonically quoting reporters, Wallis said, "It’s kind of like, ‘How dare you do plagiarism? That’s our thing!’"  The Free Beacon could find no examples of accusations, credible or otherwise, of plagiarism levied against any of 34 identified journalists who covered the story in Britain."

Why Are Academics Falsely Claiming Plagiarism Can’t Be the ‘Mere Overlap Of Sentences’ In the Wake of Jason Arday’s Death? - "When I was in the 7th grade in 1991, my terrific social studies teacher, Mr. Corkran, taught us what plagiarism was and why it was to be avoided at all costs. And importantly, he taught us strategies—which I still use today—for how to avoid even inadvertently plagiarizing, such as taking notes from another text only in paraphrase. That way you don’t later forget that what you jotted down was someone else’s verbatim text.  I wish everybody had had Mr. Corkran as a teacher. It would’ve saved, perhaps, left-wing pundit Ross Barkan from getting fired from New York magazine after they found 67 columns of his had citation problems, and also from having Penguin announce this week, per the Washington Post, it was shelving his upcoming book about his longtime friend Zohran Mamdani. When Mr. Barkan was first found out in the spring, he tried to make out like it didn’t matter if he had clearly lifted verbatim passages from another writer absent quotation marks around the text, so long, he said, as he cited them explicitly or hyperlinked to them. Mr. Corkran would tell him that is not a loophole in the plagiarism rules! The Jason Arday affair is much more complicated and ethically fraught, given, in part, that I find it hard to believe any of the sweeping overlap in the text between his work and other scholars’ papers was ever inadvertent—Liverpool John Moores University’s baffling decision to clear him of plagiarism charges on his 2015 PhD thesis notwithstanding... it seems that multiple academics in good standing have missed the message that plagiarism, by definition, can include, absent the stealing of ideas, the mere lifting of someone else’s words if that verbatim text is not put within quotation marks.  Take Jason Stanley, a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto... You know who disagrees with Dr. Stanley? His employer, the University of Toronto. The university defines plagiarism in its Code of Behavior for Academic Matters like this... I obtained a video recording of a fraught and impassioned planning meeting, held Tuesday, of the UCU Solidarity Movement—an activist collective of the University and College Union, the largest higher-education union in Britain—in which two professors claimed a similarly narrow definition of plagiarism that excluded the mere overlap of text. And yet none of the other dozens of academics on this Zoom meeting objected to this narrow definition. Instead, one Cambridge professor seemed delighted that they were at least moving the plagiarism conversation away from textual overlap and recentering it on the stealing of ideas. (Dr. Arday stood credibly accused of stealing both the words and the research of other academics, mind you, per a devastating investigation by The Times. No one in the meeting specifically acknowledged that his accused offenses were this broad in scale.)... Sean Wallis, who organized the meeting, is a principal research fellow in the University College London’s English department, the UCL branch secretary of the UCU, and sits on the union’s national executive committee. So he is no slouch. The most astonishing single thing Dr. Wallis said about plagiarism during Tuesday’s planning meeting was: “Plagiarism is not using the same phrase that somebody else has used in a previous article.”"

Academic Activists Said The Telegraph and The Times Led a ‘Lynch Mob’ Against Jason Arday—Papers They Said They Don’t Read - "The central thrust of the meeting was that these academics, who were predominantly white, but who also included a substantial cohort of South Asians, was that there was a racist right-wing conspiracy to hound black academics out of their jobs in the United Kingdom. This notion was short on specifics.  The only person they clearly identified as behind this conspiracy was Nathan Cofnas... Sean Wallis, a principal research fellow in English at University College London, said at the meeting that the goal in this conspiracy was to make cynical and bad-faith use plagiarism-detection software. He said that “it’s leveraging existing algorithmic tools, and of course you could do it in a targeted way. You target black colleagues because politically that is what they want to do. They want to hound out our black brothers and sisters, and I think we have to recognize the nature of what’s going on right now.” Led by Wallis, who is a major UCU organizer (and who, on Oct. 7, 2023, retweeted an approving post about the attacks of Oct. 7, 2023), the group sought to lay the groundwork for an action plan that could leap to the defense of any black academics who were targeted in Britain with accusations of academic misconduct... Lyes Kahouadji, a chemical engineering researcher at Imperial College London, was among those at the meeting who falsely asserted that Arday had been cleared of all accusations of plagiarism. Liverpool John Moores University did investigate Arday’s 2015 PhD thesis and, despite substantial textual overlap between the thesis and the work of another scholar, they cleared him of the charges in March. However, an Aug. 5 investigation in The Times found considerable evidence that Arday had committed plagiarism and data theft in multiple papers he published while at multiple other universities. The members of the UCU meeting seemed overwhelmingly unaware of this. Eva Hartmann, a university associate professor in Cambridge’s education department, where Arday held his prestigious professorship, was especially eager to hear Wallis shift the focus of the definition plagiarism away from textual overlap and toward the stealing of ideas (as if this would exonerate Arday, who was accused of that too). She gave Wallis an enthusiastic thumbs up when he did that... Wallis was especially keen to lambast right-leaning Telegraph and the more centrist Times as culpable of targeting Arday with harassing coverage. But he admitted that he did not read either publication. This could perhaps explain why he and others in the meeting seemed unaware of the accusations against Arday that were more serious than mere textual overlap. Wallis wondered aloud why in the world the British press even considered Arday a news story. It was one only because they said so, he said."

Wesley Yang on X - "Some media organs (NYT and Atlantic) are fitfully trying to extricate themselves from the morass of extreme wokeness, while some of the dominant peer-reviewed scientific publications of the Western world have no capacity to self-correct. A civilizational danger that nothing is contesting."
BH on X - "Arday wasn't a physician, his fabrications and plagiarism had nothing to do with the medical system or medicine, so what is NEJM even doing?"
Genetics Realist on X - "This is the gender-medicine pattern with different stationery. York/Cass reviewed 50 puberty-blocker studies and found one high-quality paper. No reliable conclusion on dysphoria, mental health, or cognition. Bone and height risks were the clearer signal. Meanwhile the Endocrine Society and WPATH guidelines cited each other and treated dissent as harm. That is not peer review. It is a closed loop. A journal that will print “I don’t care whether the allegations were true” has already left the scientific method. Cass is what self-correction looks like. Those specialty societies are what capture looks like."
Trust the "Science" that doesn't care what is true or not

Singapore's Bottle/Can Deposit Scheme

When you waste money (the vending machines alone might cost almost $100 million, not to mention operational costs) for questionable benefit (Singapore already could recover metal from cans at the waste plant). But virtue signalling is "free" because left wingers don't see the costs:

Fergus Tan | Facebook

Singapore's BCRS has an uncomfortable question nobody seems to be asking

 

What happens when environmental regulation accidentally becomes protection for the biggest companies in the market?

 

On 1 October 2026, Singapore's Beverage Container Return Scheme enters full implementation.

 

After that date, regulated canned and bottled drinks sold here generally have to comply with the BCRS system, including the Singapore deposit mark and an approved barcode. Consumers pay a 10-cent deposit and can recover it by returning the empty bottle or can.

 

The idea sounds almost impossible to disagree with.

 

Recycle more. Waste less. Save the environment.

 

But environmental policy should still pass a basic test:

 

Are the environmental benefits proportionate to the economic costs and unintended consequences we are creating?

 

I think BCRS deserves much more scrutiny on that question.

 

Deposit-return schemes are used around the world, especially in Europe.

 

And there is evidence that they work.

 

OECD research finds that jurisdictions with deposit systems can achieve collection rates above 90%, while separately collected bottles can produce cleaner recycling streams than mixed household recycling.

 

Singapore's domestic recycling rate was only 11% in 2025. NEA estimates that Singapore uses more than one billion beverage containers a year, representing more than 16,000 tonnes of material.

 

So there is a legitimate environmental problem here.

 

But that is only half the policy equation.

 

Singapore already had recycling companies, waste collectors and material recovery systems before BCRS.

 

Now we are building a separate nationwide infrastructure of reverse-vending machines, specialised logistics, barcode verification, payment systems and administration to recover bottles and cans.

 

BCRS started with more than 1,000 reverse-vending machines and intends to expand to around 2,000 return points.

 

That infrastructure is not free.

 

For Year 1, producers pay approximately 3.1 cents for every metal container and 3.7 cents for every plastic container, on top of the refundable 10-cent deposit. There is also producer registration, individual SKU registration and packaging compliance.

 

Those numbers become much more interesting when you look at who bears the compliance burden.

 

BCRS Ltd is Singapore's sole licensed scheme operator until 2033.

 

It is a not-for-profit company.

 

And who established it?

 

Coca-Cola Singapore Beverages, F&N Foods and Pokka.

 

Its board also includes representatives from smaller producers Wanin Industries and Chia Khim Lee Food Industries.

 

There is nothing inherently improper about an industry-led environmental scheme.

 

In fact, CCCS reviewed the arrangement and concluded that the establishment and operation of BCRS Ltd was unlikely to infringe Singapore's Competition Act.

 

But something else in the CCCS record deserves considerably more public attention.

 

Back in 2021, when NEA was developing the scheme, Singapore's competition regulator specifically advised NEA to regularly review the framework so that it "does not unnecessarily restrict competition", to review compliance costs as market conditions change, and to put safeguards around commercially sensitive information.

 

That tells us something important.

 

Competition concerns are not some conspiracy theory invented by unhappy importers. They were foreseeable enough for Singapore's own competition regulator to raise them before the system was built.

 

Imagine Coca-Cola or another multinational selling millions of units of a mainstream drink in Singapore.

 

Changing packaging artwork for Singapore is relatively straightforward when the production run is large enough.

 

The Government itself has said that producers accounting for around 80% of beverage containers should be able to incorporate BCRS requirements directly into their packaging.

 

Their continuing compliance cost would therefore be relatively close to the 3 to 4 cent producer fee.

 

Now consider a Singapore SME importing a few thousand cans of an obscure Japanese soda, Thai coffee, Korean energy drink or Australian craft beer.

 

The overseas manufacturer may have absolutely no interest in printing Singapore-specific packaging for such a tiny market.

 

So the importer has another option.

 

Sticker every single bottle or can.

 

And these cannot simply be labels printed on an office printer.

 

BCRS requires scheme stickers to be ordered through its portal from appointed printing companies. BCRS documentation says printing lead times can range from two to six weeks.

 

Government officials acknowledged in Parliament that small quantities stickered locally will cost more than mass-scale stickering overseas.

 

CNA interviewed importers who said stickers could cost roughly 4 to 18 cents each depending on volume, before manpower and other compliance costs are considered. Some importers warned that retail prices could rise considerably for affected products.

 

Then there is the barcode issue.

 

BCRS strongly encourages Singapore-specific barcodes. Using an international barcode can trigger a refundable security fee based on BCRS's fraud assessment.

 

BCRS itself gives an example where an importer putting 100,000 units into the market could face a S$28,000 security fee.

 

Yes, it is refundable.

 

But refundable capital still has to come from somewhere.

 

For Coca-Cola, this may be an administrative problem.

 

For a tiny importer, S$28,000 of tied-up working capital can be a commercial decision about whether the product is worth importing at all.

 

The biggest danger may not be that Coke becomes 10 cents more expensive.

 

The bigger effect could happen quietly.

 

That weird Japanese Pepsi disappears.

 

That seasonal Australian craft beer never arrives.

 

That cheap Indonesian canned drink in a neighbourhood discount shop is no longer worth importing.

 

The niche Korean drink selling 3,000 units a year gets dropped because registration, approval, stickering and administration make the economics ridiculous.

 

Nobody announces that competition has fallen.

 

Products simply stop appearing.

 

This matters particularly because Singapore is a tiny consumer market.

 

A regulation that costs five cents per unit may be trivial at ten million units and commercially significant at ten thousand units.

 

That is basic economies of scale.

 

And regulation can therefore be formally equal while having very unequal economic effects.

 

Parallel importers create an unusual form of competition.

 

They can source identical or alternative products from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Europe or elsewhere when the economics make sense.

 

That puts competitive pressure on official supply channels.

 

CNA found exactly this price dynamic in January.

 

Some imported canned drinks sold for around 70 cents, while locally supplied alternatives were closer to S$1. Importers interviewed by CNA worried BCRS compliance costs would narrow that gap.

 

There is therefore a legitimate public-policy question:

 

Could an environmental regulation unintentionally reduce the competitive pressure that parallel imports place on large incumbent beverage suppliers?

 

That is a much more serious question than whether carrying bottles to a vending machine is inconvenient.

 

What happens when consumers don't bother returning their bottles?

 

They lose their 10 cents.

 

Those unredeemed deposits can be used by BCRS Ltd to fund the operation of the scheme. The Government confirmed this in Parliament in August.

 

BCRS is a not-for-profit organisation, so describing this simply as Coca-Cola, F&N or Pokka "pocketing the deposits" would be inaccurate.

 

In fact, BCRS's published fee formula explicitly uses unclaimed deposits and revenue from the sale of recyclables to offset operating costs.

 

But this creates an interesting economic structure.

 

The consumer who doesn't return a bottle effectively contributes towards funding the system.

 

Meanwhile every producer, including a tiny importer, has to participate in the infrastructure created to administer that system.

 

That structure deserves transparent scrutiny.

 

Supporters will understandably point towards Germany, Norway, Denmark and Lithuania.

 

Their return rates are impressive.

 

But copying an instrument does not automatically mean copying the circumstances that made it appropriate.

 

Singapore has different geography, different waste infrastructure, a much smaller domestic market, enormous dependence on imported consumer goods and an unusually dense retail environment.

 

There is also a social side to deposit schemes that receives surprisingly little discussion.

 

Germany has developed an entire informal culture of Pfandsammler, people who collect discarded deposit-bearing bottles from streets, events and rubbish bins for income.

 

A 2025 German study estimated more than one million people engaged in deposit-bottle collection.

 

One can view that positively because discarded bottles get collected.

 

One can also ask whether designing a system where discarded packaging acquires cash value changes how people interact with public rubbish bins and public spaces.

 

Again, environmental policy has consequences beyond the headline recycling percentage.

 

There is evidence that Singaporeans are using BCRS.

 

MSE reported on 8 September that more than 20 million beverage containers had been collected during the first five months.

 

That sounds impressive until we remember that Singapore consumes more than one billion beverage containers annually and that we are still in the transition period, when many bottles do not yet carry BCRS markings.

 

It is therefore too early to draw either conclusion.

 

We cannot honestly say today that BCRS has failed environmentally.

 

We also cannot point to "20 million bottles collected" and conclude that the whole system represents good public policy.

 

The meaningful evaluation comes later:

 

How many of those containers would otherwise have been recycled?

 

How much additional material was genuinely diverted from incineration?

 

What is the full carbon footprint of manufacturing, operating and servicing thousands of reverse-vending machines and transporting the collected material?

 

How much has the scheme cost producers and consumers?

 

How many SKUs disappeared from Singapore because complying was no longer economically worthwhile?

 

How have prices of imported beverages changed relative to locally distributed alternatives?

 

How much working capital has been tied up in international-barcode security deposits?

 

And has market concentration in beverage distribution increased?

 

Those figures would tell us far more than the number flashing on a reverse-vending machine.

 

The choice does not have to be between "abolish BCRS" and "change nothing".

 

Regulators can examine whether a minimum threshold makes sense for very small-volume importers.

 

They can study whether small annual volumes justify simplified registration or alternative compliance mechanisms.

 

They can evaluate whether international barcodes really require security deposits at the present scale.

 

They can publish the effective compliance cost per container broken down by large, medium and small producers.

 

They can monitor how many beverage SKUs and importers leave the Singapore market after full implementation.

 

And CCCS can continue doing exactly what it recommended years ago: periodically reviewing whether the framework imposes unnecessary restrictions on competition and whether compliance costs remain justified.

 

Most importantly, environmental performance should eventually be reported as more than "X million bottles collected."

 

Singapore should be able to measure the incremental recycling created by BCRS against its financial cost, carbon footprint, consumer inconvenience and impact on competition.

 

Singapore has always depended on being an unusually easy place to trade.

 

We are a small market.

 

That makes regulatory fixed costs particularly dangerous because every additional licence, registration process, approved vendor, specialised label and compliance system has to be amortised over a relatively small customer base.

 

Large corporations can absorb those costs far more easily than small companies.

 

BCRS may ultimately prove environmentally worthwhile.

 

But if it improves recycling while quietly reducing product diversity, raising barriers to parallel imports and favouring businesses with enormous production volumes, Singapore deserves to know.

 

Green policy should be measured by environmental outcomes, competition outcomes and its total cost to society.

 

The hardest question surrounding BCRS therefore isn't:

 

"Does recycling sound like a good idea?"

 

Of course it does.

 

The harder question is:

 

Did we design the most proportionate recycling system for a tiny, open, import-dependent economy like Singapore?

 

That is the question worth answering.

Links - 30th September 2026 (2 - Mark Carney)

Meme - Carney as clown putting on makeup: "WE WILL GET AN EVEN BETTER TRADE DEAL WITH THE US"
"CANADA ALREADY HAS THE BEST TRADE DEAL WITH THE US"
"CUSMA BEING TERMINATED WILL HAVE MINIMAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON CANADA"
"THE NEW DEAL WE NEGOTIATED IS BAD, THIS IS PIERRE POILIEVRE'S FAULT"

Michael Higgins: Trade war was never about sovereignty | National Post - "It is unfortunate that the Liberal government is still refusing to reveal exactly what the U.S. was asking and why Canada felt unable to accept. Article content  What we do know is that of the three examples that Carney cited on that Saturday as being a threat to our sovereignty one has been settled, and may never have been an issue, and we largely appear to agree on a second. Article content  The third issue, tariff levels on medium and heavy-duty trucks is an outstanding irritant and a large one. The potential economic harm to Ontario especially is such that it is likely to have always been a red line for Canada. Article content Article content  But tariffs on trucks isn’t a sovereignty issue, it’s a trade one and best dealt with at the negotiating table. Carney told Canadians, “We are masters of our destiny.” Fine, but we are not masters of the U.S. and if they want to impose tariffs, it may be unreasonable, unfair, uneconomic and ultimately disastrous, but that’s what a sovereign nation can do. Article content  However, framing tariffs on trucks as an existential threat to Canada was never going to be enough for Liberals. Arguing over 25 per cent tariffs on medium and heavy trucks is a legitimate aim for trade negotiators but lacks the drama needed by a fiery prime minister to fire up Canada. Article content  A week ago, a steadfast Carney warned that “America was trying to break us so they can own us and I promised that would never, never happen.” Article content  If the backdrop to that was tariffs on trucks, then Carney might have been accused of being less Churchillian and more Shakespearean. Article content  Hence, Carney introduced two other factors: the risk to our language and culture as well as our ability to make trade deals with other countries. Article content  These are things to rile up the masses... Article content  The risk to “our language, our culture, our sovereignty” was about discoverability rules, it was about whether streaming services should have to be subject to the abysmal CanCon requirements. The U.S. wasn’t particularly happy with discoverability but was never going to war over it, said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Article content  Whatever the U.S.’s previous position, Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc appeared delighted it was now a non-issue. Article content  So, the danger to our “language and culture” is not an issue now and wasn’t much of one before. More a storm in a teacup, really. Article content  As for trading with other nations, it appears the U.S. — as part of a Canadian desire for Fortress North America — wanted to align tariffs in certain sectors like steel and aluminum. The purpose was to prevent a third country dumping cheap steel/aluminum in one country — say Canada — which would then make its way to the U.S. Article content Article content  It’s a position Carney appears to agrees with as long as it’s part of a “comprehensive deal.” Article content  It’s the kind of issue that is hammered out between trade negotiators, is detailed on page 143 of the trade agreement, is read by trade lawyers in trade magazines and never actually worries the average Canadian. Article content  In light of these revelations, why aren’t we back at the bargaining table? Article content  Janice Charette, Canada’s chief U.S. trade negotiator, told the CBC that “pens are down, but the door is open.” Article content  It was Carney’s decision to call off the trade talks and presumably he could push for them to restart. That he isn’t making that call speaks to other political motives: is he burnishing his tough guy credentials? Awaiting to see the outcome of the U.S. midterm elections? Gambling on the anger of U.S. states to convince Donald Trump of the error of his ways? Article content  Whatever Carney’s motives, he is playing a bold, dangerous and ambitious game."

Meme - Kirk Lubimov @KirkLubimov: "Canadian Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association: Chinese plywood is being dumped in Canada.
Liberals: it isn't happening, America's tariffs are unfair.
CBSA: Our investigation confirms it is correct.
America: we told you"
Canada Border Services A...: "Update: our early findings confirm that imports of this product are being sold in the Canadian market at unfair prices (dumped) and subsidized. Temporary duties will now apply as investigations continue."
Canada Border Services Agency: "Fair trade matters. The CBSA launches investigations to see whether decorative and non-structural plywood from China is being sold at unfair prices (dumped) in Canada, subsidized, or both:"

Melissa Chen on X - "One of the most toxic fallouts from the Trump years is this reflexive need a lot of people have to automatically side with anyone going up against him.   Mark Carney is banking on that and exploiting it hard. He knows the press will paint Trump as the irresponsible, blustery provocateur in the collapsing Canada-US trade talks, so by going all-out against Trump he scores easy political points.  The truth of the matter is that the playing field has been uneven and unfair between Canada and the US for decades.  Canada imposes lofty tariffs - sometimes nearly 300% - on American cheese and milk once a tiny quota is filled, and they even give the Europeans better access than they give the Americans.  Provinces yanked American wine and spirits off the shelves in government liquor stores. They hit US cars with extra tariffs and quotas. Softwood lumber has been a long-running game too. But the biggest problem is the Chinese back-door scam: steel, auto parts, and EVs from China get lightly processed or just relabeled in Canada, then shipped into America under USMCA rules so they dodge the tariffs Trump put on Beijing.   That lets China keep flooding the North American market, undercutting American (and Canadian) workers, and basically laundering its way around the sanctions and trade barriers meant to stop its cheating. The Trump admin wants to end the free ride and make Canada shut down the transshipment loophole that China is exploiting.   Carney walking away from a near-done deal and playing the victim just keeps Canada in bed with Beijing while American (and Canadian) workers pay the price. And he’s hoping you don’t look beyond the headlines and find out the truth"

Cecile Shaw on X - "One reason the Canada-US trade deal collapsed:   Canada could not promise / would not stop Chinese steel being transshipped into auto parts & then into the U.S. market.  The U.S. requires a strict “melt and pour” rule. Steel  must be melted and poured in North America to qualify for preferential treatment.   This stops Chinese steel from entering Canada, getting light processing, and crossing the border as “North American” content to evade tariffs.  Recall The Canadian Steel Producers Association and Aluminium Association of Canada have both publicly confirmed Chinese dumping is happening, warning Canada risks becoming a dumping ground for China’s excess steel and aluminum.   A recent White House report on the “transshipment scam” also listed Canada as a problem country in China’s shadow network for evading U.S. tariffs.  Canada failed to deliver enforceable guarantees. Mexico accepted the melt-and-pour requirements, raised tariffs on Chinese steel and auto parts, and closed the back door.   Canada left it open and the deal fell apart."
Sammy on X - "Evidently, Canada thinks that "free trade" should only be free for Canada.  Crooks! Ripping off Americans/American business like this deserves for Canada to be crushed with far more than 50% tariffs.  Canadian government is lying about the REAL bad guy is. Canadian tariffs for years have also included:
45% tariffs on American HVACs
245% on American cheese
298% on American butter
69% on American sausage
238% on American chicken
57.8% on American Barley seed
26.5% on American meat
35% on American vaccumns
35% on American cable boxes
45% on American TVs
25% on American steel
45% on American aluminum
48% on American copper
Evidently, Canada thinks that "free trade" should only be free for Canada.  Crooks!"
Cecile Shaw on X - "Canada doesn’t even practice free trade within its own borders.  It maintains interprovincial tariffs and regulations on a wide range of products and services. Even maple syrup cannot move freely across the country.   Major industries including banking, liquor, telecommunications, dairy, and lumber are largely controlled by massive oligopoly cartels.  So when you hear Carney or any Cdn politician lecture the United States about “free trade,” it is one of the most hypocritical statements imaginable."
Sammy on X - "And ... they smear & blame Trump/US to hide their own shady deeds."

cbcwatcher on X - "The Globe’s editorial board has discovered Canadian sovereignty is non-negotiable—conveniently, when the pressure comes from Washington demanding Canada limit other trade deals.  Where was this spine in January when Mark Carney flew to Beijing, inked MoUs on energy, food safety, wood products, culture, and RCMP–Chinese Ministry of Public Security crime-fighting cooperation, and declared a “new strategic partnership”? Those weren’t just canola tariff relief and a capped EV quota. They expanded institutional ties with a party-state that interferes in Canadian democracy, targets diaspora communities, and treats economic leverage as political coercion.   Crucially, key parts remain secret. The precise terms of the RCMP–MPS arrangement (and fuller details of several other MoUs) have never been publicly released. Canadians are expected to trust non-binding summaries and joint statements while the operational fine print on intelligence/evidence sharing with China’s security apparatus stays undisclosed.  Sovereignty apparently only becomes sacred when American negotiators try to constrain Canada’s options. Deeper process architecture, security dialogue, and opaque “mutual support” language with Beijing? That’s diversification and resilience. The selective alarm is the tell: principle when it fits the preferred narrative, flexibility (and secrecy) when the counterparty is the CCP. If sovereignty is never negotiable, apply the standard evenly—or stop pretending the concern is pure @PatrickBrethour  @globeandmail"

Meme - Gina Unititered: "Hey @grok, is there any realistic scenario where Canada could actually win a trade war with the United States? Short answer. No sugarcoating."
Grok @grok: "No. Canada's economy is roughly 1/12 the size of the US. About 70-75% of Canadian goods exports go south, equal to ~16-20% of Canadian GDP. US exposure is a fraction of that. Tariffs inflict far larger relative GDP and job losses on Canada. Energy leverage exists but cutting it would crater Canadian revenues first. Diversification is too slow to change the math."
The same people who mock Trump for imposing tariffs, saying they are always bad for the country imposing them, want to impose tariffs on the US

The Real Mr Bench on X - "Mark Carney says Canada was “attacked.”  “You’re at war when you get attacked.”  Then listen to what comes next.  Carney says Ottawa is looking at the tax system and how to “shift the burden to those who are most able to pay.”  Trade talks collapse. Declare Canada under attack. Start talking about who should surrender more of their money.  Is Carney selling socialism to Canadians under the cover of a trade war?"

Yuan Yi Zhu on X - "This is a great letter. There is no reason why Mr Carney can't release the draft agreement that he walked away from. The Americans know what is in it, the Canadian government knows what is in it, and the Canadian people deserve to know as well."

Christo Aivalis | Facebook - "Carney needs to realize we aren't gonna capitalism our way out of this. The economic effects will be devastating as we prepare to fight Trump. Only World War 2 style economic planning and taxation upon the rich will see us win this fight. Socialism or MAGAism"
Left wing logic - you need to destroy the economy and the country to spite Trump. If you don't you're a traitor

James E. Thorne on X - "Canada’s Trade-War Denial
 Canada does not need “time to adjust.” It needs a political class willing to stop confusing indignation with economic policy. And it needs access to the US market.   President Trump is focused on economic sovereignty, this is not personal this is business.   I assumed Mark Carney understood that. He has spent enough time around markets and capital to know that a country cannot posture its way out of a competitiveness crisis. Yet Ottawa’s turn toward symbolism and performative retaliation suggests that faith was misplaced.  Canada does not need another era of Pierre Elliott Trudeau-style progressive theatre: moral signalling, state direction, and lofty ambition detached from the hard work of building productive capacity. It needs an adult willing to confront vested interests, make trade-offs, and put economic strength ahead of political performance. The last adult, it seems, has just left the room.  The elbows-up strategy is embarrassing and hurts Canada long term, like a teenager emotional response to the reality of the world. Carney’s use of it helps neither negotiation nor leverage, and it wounds Canada more than the U.S.  The central strategic objective is obvious: preserve access to the United States, the world’s largest and most dynamic market, Canada’s neighbour, and the foundation of its export economy. That access is not a talking point. It supports Canadian jobs, investment, supply chains, and growth.  Canada focus on China is an own goal. China cannot replace it. China is distant, strategically uncertain, and separated from Canada by geography, institutions, and infrastructure. It cannot reproduce continental integration: shared energy systems, cross-border capital, integrated factories, common standards, and decades of commercial interdependence. Canada does not get to trade on sentiment while depending on geography.  Nor can it “win” a trade war with its largest customer. Ottawa can impose targeted costs where it has genuine leverage. It can negotiate firmly. But broad retaliation is not a strategy. It is emotional performance masquerading as economic policy.  Too many in the political and economic elite appear to believe retaliation can force the structural adjustment Canada has avoided for years. It cannot. Tariffs do not raise productivity. They do not attract investment, reduce regulatory costs, or make Canadian businesses more competitive. They raise prices for households, increase costs for manufacturers, and encourage mobile capital to locate elsewhere. Retaliation for its own sake is an expensive expression of national frustration. Canadians pay the bill.  The deeper problem is not merely American pressure. It is Canadian failure: weak business investment, poor productivity growth, regulatory paralysis, provincial trade barriers, slow approvals, inadequate infrastructure, and a subsidy culture that protects incumbents rather than rewards builders.  Canada is rich in assets and poor in execution. It has energy, minerals, capital, skilled people, and privileged proximity to America. Yet it has made investment too slow, too risky, and too expensive.  The answer is not submission. It is reform: deregulate, accelerate approvals, remove barriers to capital and internal trade, and lower the cost of building.  Canada may need time to adjust. But first it needs to end its denial."

Hans Mahncke on X - "99% of U.S. natural gas imports, 85% of electricity imports, and 60% of crude oil imports sounds impressive, but it is totally misleading. Those are percentages of imports, not of total U.S. energy supply. America produces most of its own energy, so the Canadian share of actual U.S. supply is dramatically smaller. In electricity, for example, it is about 1%."

Meme - IQ 589 I Cody Penn-Dent I Effluencer @codypd: "Picture of how Canada gets oil from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec. Canadians are talking about "cutting off" the US from Canadian petroleum and natural gas. What they will end up doing is cutting Canada off from Alberta's petroleum and natural gas"
aaahhhchew @aaahhhchew: "Canadians will starve, suffer and live in complete poverty just so they can say "It's Trumps fault". Once Canada is destroyed all these TDS lib commies are all just going to move back to the Euro. Canada has been hijacked as a tool to be used as a thorn in President Trumps shoe"
Meanwhile left wingers are still opposing new pipelines

Peter McCaffrey on X - "SHOCKING: The NY Times reveals that the US were keen to move ahead with the Keystone XL pipeline, but the Liberals used it as a bargaining chip to try to change the deal in the last hours. Side note: Why can’t we get this kind of information from our own government and media?"
TIme to blame Trump again

Dan Knight on X - "Donald Trump has just damned Canada to four more years of David Eby and Mark Carney. Elections are coming, and these grifters will seize the opportunity to wrap themselves in the flag and cash in on the anti-Trump wave."

Christian Heiens 🏛 on X - "The average Canadian has never looked at a map of their own country.   Line 9, which supplies nearly all of Ontario and Quebec with their oil, runs through the United States before re-entering Canada through Southern Ontario.    Years ago, the Canadians had an opportunity to build a new pipeline named Energy East that would have supplied Eastern Canada and the Maritimes with Albertan oil without entering the US.    The Liberals killed the project.   Shutting off Canadian energy to America means shutting off energy to Ontario and Quebec too.  So congratulations on destroying your own country and ruining whatever leverage you had. I'm sure it made you all feel morally superior at the time though, so maybe it was worth it."
Canadian patriotism is about destroying the company to spite the US and Donald Trump

Jason Pugh 🇨🇦 🏳️‍🌈 on X - "WATCH: Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe asked what it would take to put oil and potash on the table in the Canada-U.S. trade war. “It’s not possible.” He says it would be a flawed policy that would put Canadians out of work. @PremierScottMoe @MarkJCarney @realDonaldTrump"

Scott Robertson on X - "Scott Moe rules out applying export tariffs on potash as leverage against the U.S."
Jiggly News on X - "It would be nice if Moe and Smith were on Team Canada"
Randy Walsh on X - "If Moe and Smith follow through on what you want them to do, it would mean throwing 10s of thousands of Canadians out of work. I’m not sure why you have a problem with their decision to protect people’s incomes."
Left wing Canadians will destroy the country just to spite Trump

Meme - "Ok so let me get this straight... Canadians are losing their minds because ol Donny boy just doubled down on the East tariffs on Steel and aluminum which will most definitely limit access of their goods going south, losing them billions....imagine that, how thing horrific. Meanwhile the East has been limiting access for Alberta oil with refusal of pipelines for fking Decades!!! Won't buy Alberta oil, would rather get it tankerred in from Foreign countries... So Alberta is Forced to sell it south at a discount and then Alberta is still forced to send the East money...So wheres been the Canadian outrage?? Honestly this country Is so ridiculous, you cant even make this shit up, it's no wonder Albertans want to Exit Canada."

cbcwatcher on X - "For the first time, Canadians hear the US side of the collapsed trade talks. In a CBC interview with Rosemary Barton, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said America felt “very, very confident in the deal we had struck late Tuesday night.” They believed they had offered “the best deal available to any country on the planet with respect to Canada.”Then Ottawa returned with more demands. “They had some additional requests… that were too much for the United States,” Greer said. “Giving them the best deal in the world would have been enough.”He rejected claims of last-minute U.S. additions: the president’s comment was “off the cuff.” The core rates (autos toward 15%, steel and aluminum cuts) were agreed Tuesday and did not change. On the president’s comment that last-minute U.S. additions “sound like me,” Greer pushed back: the remarks were “off the cuff.” The last conversation between Trump and Prime Minister Carney was Tuesday night, with “some meeting of the minds” on specific rates and percentages. “Hard to change those things after a given time.”On specific Canadian flashpoints:* Medium- and heavy-duty trucks fell under a separate national-security measure, not the auto deal.* “Fortress North America” coordination was about preventing Canada from becoming a backdoor for third-country steel and aluminum—not dictating Ottawa’s future deals.* French-language discoverability was “the farthest thing from a red line”Greer repeated that Canada has been the only country (besides a settled China dispute) to retaliate with bans and caps. Channels are currently closed. “We have a trade policy. It’s global in nature. We’re proceeding with it.”That’s the American account of why the talks fell apart @jamiesongreer @RosieBarton"

Meme - Pierre Pollievre: "Why is the Liberal media so madly in love with Mark Carney? Because, when Trudeau/ Freeland debtonate the economy, they can say, "here is a NEW Liberal saviour to rescue us from the crisis created by the previous Liberal saviours." #Debtonation" - 2021-03-20

Bradshaw on X - "Elbows Up 🤷‍♀️ Carney again chooses Europe over Canada to Vacation. His assets are The US and every chance he gets he’s off to Europe,again why how did anyone fall for this goof.."

wealthmoose on X - "🚨 WHAT ARE THE ODDS? 🇨🇦🇮🇹 In just months:
🇮🇹 Brookfield completes a ~$900M acquisition of Italy’s Fosber.
📡 Brookfield is reported exploring a takeover of Italian telecom giant INWIT.
⚽ Brookfield completes its takeover of Oaktree — whose funds control Inter Milan, tied to the massive San Siro redevelopment.
Meanwhile…  🇨🇦 Mark Carney — Brookfield’s former Chair — is rapidly deepening Canada’s relationship with Italy across energy, critical minerals, defence, investment and supply chains.  Proof of wrongdoing? No.  One hell of a coincidence?  Absolutely.  When public policy and the expanding interests of a PM’s former company keep landing on the same map…  Canadians should be asking questions. 👀"

L. Wayne Mathison on X - "Canada has just committed roughly $2.3 billion to Telesat for Arctic military communications. That comes on top of a $2.14 billion federal loan already supporting its Lightspeed satellite project. This is a company whose creditors are now suing over disputed asset transfers and looming debt maturities. Telesat denies the allegations, but taxpayers deserve far more scrutiny than they’re getting.   The CEO is also described in parliamentary testimony as a close personal friend of Mark Carney. Friendship does not prove corruption. But when billions of public dollars are involved, that relationship demands full disclosure, transparent procurement and a clear explanation of why this was the best deal available.   SpaceX already operates a large, functioning low-Earth-orbit network. Telesat’s full global service is not expected until late 2027. Yet Ottawa keeps acting as though spending enough money can somehow buy Canada an instant place at the front of the technological race.   There may be legitimate military reasons for Canada to want sovereign communications rather than depending entirely on an American company. OK. Make that case openly. Show the competing bids, the security requirements, the delivery schedule and the cost comparison.  What Ottawa should not do is use “Canadian innovation” as a magic phrase that ends all questioning.  We are trying to catch a company that is already far ahead by placing another enormous government bet on an unfinished system tied to a financially troubled parent company. That is industrial policy by political confidence rather than proven performance.  Canada is not falling behind because taxpayers refuse to spend enough. We are falling behind because government repeatedly rewards connections, announcements and promises while other countries build, launch and deliver."

Nick Leaf on X - "You can’t make this stuff up. Doug Ford cancels $100 million deal with Starlink and pays huge penalty. Mark Carney, gives $2.3 Billion to his buddy at Telesat to provide internet for Northern Canada. Telesat hires Space X to launch Telesat satellites to cover Northern Canada."

Carney’s climate policy is splitting the Left. Here’s what it means for the Liberals, Conservatives, and the NDP - "  Steven Guilbeault, longtime high-profile Greenpeace activist turned Liberal MP, former environment and climate change minister, and driving force behind the Trudeau government’s divisive green policies, is resigning over Carney’s climate policies.  This follows news from last week that 14 Liberal MPs had sent a letter to the prime minister at the end of April, objecting to the Ottawa-Alberta energy agreement and raising concerns that the Liberals were backsliding on the environment.  Can climate be the seam that tears the Liberals’ ever-broadening tent?...   Though cost-of-living pressures have weighed on its salience, Canadians still broadly support climate action. At the height of Trudeau’s unpopularity in 2024, 62 percent of Canadians reported feeling concerned about climate change, including half of Conservative voters.  One in four Canadians thought the Carney-Smith MOU was a “betrayal,” including 22 percent of Liberal voters. Last week, La Presse accused Carney of “environmental treason.”   The Conservative Party stands to be the main beneficiary of this fracture."

Meme - Shuv Majumdar: "Mark Carney made a bad deal, then lied to Canadians about it. Now Liberal MPs are shutting down scrutiny rather than voting for transparency."
"Liberals adjourn committee without voting on Conservative motion to look into Gordie Howe bridge deal"

Marc Nixon on X - "I just spoke to a socialist boomer who was thrilled that Mark Carney won the last election.  I asked one question:  “If Canada is such a great investment, why is roughly 91% of Carney’s reported net worth tied to U.S. assets, while only about 0.5% is in Canada?  Shouldn’t someone who truly believes Canada be investing here?  He was stunned.  Most Canadians have no idea Mark Carney is ALL in on 🇺🇸"

Meme - "WORST TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER EVER"

Mark Carney might be used to being the smartest guy in the room. That’s no guarantee of success in politics - The Globe and Mail - "If you are always the smartest guy in any discussion, if you can always run rings around the people you’re dealing with, it can impair your judgment – a very different thing from intelligence.  Smart people win arguments. Wise people learn from them. Getting your intellectual ass handed to you from time to time induces a needed humility, an understanding that there may be points of view you haven’t encountered, facts you aren’t aware of, angles you haven’t considered.  I wouldn’t go so far as to say that intelligence is necessarily an obstacle to judgment, but it can be. Judgment is as much or more a matter of temperament, and experience, as it is processing speed. Jean Chrétien was, like Mr. Trudeau but not Mr. Harper, no intellectual, but he had more political judgment than the two of them put together.  Worse, being top dog can also blind you to what the other dogs are thinking. People who think the boss is contemptuous of them will one day return the favour. Mr. Carney is riding high at the moment. The public is rightly frightened by the course of world events, notably the sudden “heel turn” of the United States under Donald Trump. Mr. Carney’s technocratic sheen, the bespoke suits and cool, appraising demeanour, suits their current tastes in leaders.  But that is in part because he has not had to do a great deal other than look the part, unflappable and steely eyed. At some point James Bond has to actually kill someone. At some point Mr. Carney is going to have to make some fundamental decisions, win a big fight, deliver on his lofty promises.  At that point the wry wink and the easy grin won’t be enough. He’s going to need allies. And at that point the people he’s been bossing about and dressing down are going to make a calculation: Are my interests still served by sticking with this guy? It won’t be love or loyalty that moves them. It will be percentage points... Everything about Mr. Carney screams “I am a Goldman Sachs alum.” And yet his every word or deed seems to say, “I know. Isn’t it great?” That is not a quality that is likely to endear you to people over time. Maybe in business it does, or in senior bureaucratic roles, though I doubt it does even there. But in politics it is lethal. Or at least, it can be. Again, what people want varies with the circumstances... Certainly he has proved himself to be a much more adept political animal than many people might have supposed when he started, in the sense of a willingness to drop long-held principles on the spot if that was what was necessary to win and keep power... he is having to learn all this on the job – a job with frankly dizzying powers. Prime ministers in any Westminster system are immensely powerful. Prime ministers in Canada have always been especially powerful. But the powers of a Canadian prime minister have of late grown to levels that have neither precedent nor parallel... A 2007 survey of 250 experts in 22 countries, scoring prime ministers around the world over last two decades of the 20th century on a number of variables, found widespread agreement that the Prime Minister of Canada was the most powerful of the bunch, and by a wide margin.  So in Mr. Carney we have an unusual combination of attributes: extraordinary self-confidence, utter lack of political experience, and enormous power. Is it entirely surprising to find that his conduct in office reveals a certain, shall we say, authoritarian streak? It isn’t just the willingness to ride roughshod over important civil liberties, from the rights of asylum claimants to an independent hearing to the rights of internet users not to have the police snooping into their data to the manifest privacy violations implied by Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, and Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act.  It’s also the high-handed treatment of Parliament involved in passing these bills, whether by means of omnibus legislation combining bills with comically disparate purposes, which MPs are obliged to pass at one go; or by arbitrary limits on how long each bill might be debated, or what sorts of amendments might be entertained.  It’s Mr. Carney’s refusal to attend more than a handful of Question Periods, even when he is in Ottawa, as if the raucous, rancorous daily hazing of government ministers were beneath him, and not an integral part of his job: the basic requirement of accountability, without which power has no legitimacy. And it’s the lordly way in which he treats his own caucus, not only forcing them to stand and support, over and over again, the very opposite policies to those they stood for little more than a year ago... no prime minister has displayed quite such an obvious personal taste for autocracy, so early in his tenure, with so little evident concern for how this might come back to haunt him. What’s that old show biz saying? Take care how you treat people on the way up. You’ll meet them on the way down."
The "qualifications" crowd have great copes to explain away his lack of political experience

Thread by @TrendPolCa on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "PM @MarkJCarney just handed day-to-day control of his office to an American political operative who worked for Hillary Clinton and Michael Bloomberg.  Her title didn't exist until this week, and even the Globe and Mail can't fully explain how she got here. 🧵👇
Her name is Maia Johnson. She surfaced in Canadian politics last year, coming in from New York City to volunteer on Carney's leadership campaign.  By this year she was inside the PMO as his senior adviser on Canada-U.S. relations. Now Carney has made her chief operating officer, a corporate title never before used in the Prime Minister's Office.  The chief of staff runs the political agenda. Johnson runs the machine itself, making sure the day-to-day work of the government happens as desired. The Globe pieced together what it could about her. She is cited in news stories as running political strategy and logistics for Democrats, including Clinton, and is connected to Bloomberg's now-defunct strategy firm, Hawkfish.  Bloomberg co-chaired Carney's UN climate finance alliance, which sources say is where the two connected. In June, the ethics commissioner fined her for filing her required public disclosures late. Her disclosure statement is still listed as in progress.  The Globe asked Johnson directly how she came to work in Canadian politics. She did not reply, and the PMO declined to comment. Her promotion comes as Carney enters year two, under pressure to land a U.S. trade deal and steady a shaky economy.
The person now keeping his government running is one whose path to the job nobody in Ottawa can fully explain — The Globe and Mail"
Tamara Lich 🇨🇦 on X - "Canada already has a Chief Operating Officer. He’s called the Prime Minister. The role of Prime Minister entails day-to-day duties associated with overseeing operations necessary to run a country. Our Prime Minister is too important to waste his time on governing so he’s it off to an American Democrat.  Canada, eh?  Elbows up!"

Jamil Jivani on X - "Wait, the media wants me to apologize for being friends with VP Vance and going to the White House to establish better dialogue between our countries. Hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on the Canada-US relationship. But Carney chooses to fill his office with Democrat operatives, and that's no big deal? Does he actually want a good relationship with our biggest trading partner? Does he care about Canadian jobs?"

Meme *Liberal Carney stomping on Canada*
*Food* *Immigration* *Housing Price*
*Trump throws tariff slap at Carney*
Bloodied Carney to Canada: "He's bullying us!"

Ryan Gerritsen on X - "Carney is using a tactic called the illusory truth effect on Canadians.  He repeats the same statements over and over again in order to make them feel believable and familiar.  Facts eventually mean nothing to the people who keep seeing, hearing or reading them because of this repeated familiarity.   Here I highlight the endless usage of “deepening”.  Carney uses it almost weekly."