Canadian society has high social trust—but can that survive our unprecedented immigration increases?

Left wing logic (when it's convenient) - it doesn't matter if trust goes down as long as it's still above the global average.

If elites undermine trust by lying, clearly the "far right" and "misinformation" are to blame.

Since integration is racist, good luck rebuilding trust. 

Clearly, if you oppose mass migration, you're racist. 

DeepDive: Canadian society has high social trust—but can that survive our unprecedented immigration increases?

"Canada is a high-trust country. Surveys consistently show that Canadians are more likely than most people in the world to say “others can be trusted,” to respect the rules, and to view government and civic institutions as broadly legitimate. In Q4 2024, for instance, 43.5 percent of Canadians reported that “most people can be trusted”, which is significantly higher than global averages and among the highest in the OECD.

This sense of collective trust is a huge advantage for the country. It helps to explain why our markets function as well as they do, why our democracy is relatively stable, and why Canada is generally seen as a good place to live and invest.

Scholars often note that only a small cluster of countries consistently report that a majority of people can be trusted. That makes Canada an outlier in the global context. Preserving that advantage has, among other benefits, major economic upside. Economic research, for instance, links a one-point rise in generalized trust to several percentage points of GDP per capita in the long run.

Trust isn’t a static inheritance. It’s continually shaped by social change, economic developments, and political choices. Immigration, in particular, has long interacted with these trust dynamics—sometimes straining them but more often reinforcing them. For decades, newcomers have contributed to Canada’s economy, enriched its culture, and, over time, come to share in its high-trust norms.

But the unprecedented scale of today’s immigration experiment raises new questions that haven’t yet been squarely addressed by policymakers or commentators.

The central issue is this: What happens when a high-trust society welcomes large numbers of newcomers from countries with lower levels of trust? Do newcomers converge toward Canada’s institutions and norms of cooperation, or does the sheer scale of change begin to alter those norms themselves?

In the past, the answer has generally been positive. Over generations, immigrants and their children have converged toward Canadian levels of trust. Yet scale, speed, and segregation matter. When half the population in some of our cities is already foreign-born, and when housing and settlement patterns reduce day-to-day mixing, can we still assume the same outcome?

This DeepDive essay aims to explore that question by surveying the best theoretical and empirical research on the relationship between immigration, diversity, and social trust. The research shows that high-trust societies can remain resilient, but only if their institutions function well and integration is actively managed. Canada’s unprecedented immigration levels make those conditions harder to sustain...

The highest-trust societies are typically in Northern Europe. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, for instance, more than 60 percent of respondents say that most people can be trusted. At the other end of the spectrum, in countries like Brazil, Colombia, and the Philippines, the share can be as low as 5 percent. The United States falls somewhere in the middle, with roughly a third of respondents expressing generalized trust.

Canada consistently ranks as a high-trust country. Roughly 40 percent of Canadians tell survey researchers that most people can be trusted—though the number has been falling in recent years. According to Statistics Canada’s Canadian Social Survey, for instance, the share of Canadians who believe that most people can be trusted has fallen from 46.8 percent in Q2 2022 to 43.5 percent in Q4 2024 (see figure 1).

The downward drift in Canadian trust levels may seem small, but longitudinal research shows that even modest declines can signal important shifts...

High levels of social trust are rightly seen as a civic and engagement advantage. Scholars have shown that trust acts as a source of social capital that lowers transaction costs, facilitates cooperation, and enables societies to organize at scale. High-trust societies can build dynamic economies and robust democracies. Low-trust societies often rely on family ties, informal networks, or heavy state coercion.

Studies estimate that differences in trust can explain up to one-fifth of the variance in economic growth across advanced countries. Trust lowers the cost of credit, increases investment horizons, and reduces reliance on costly monitoring. In low-trust societies, firms tend to remain family-owned and small; in high-trust ones, large corporations can emerge because strangers are more willing to collaborate...

In high-trust contexts, people are able to cooperate beyond kinship networks, which in turn enables the rise of large-scale firms, vibrant civic associations, and credible political institutions. In low-trust societies, by contrast, confidence rarely extends beyond the family, constraining organizational scale and leaving more functions to the state. For Fukuyama, generalized trust is a cultural inheritance that’s transmitted across generations and rooted in historical experience...

[In] E Pluribus Unum, Putnam addressed the role of diversity more directly. His large-N empirical work showed that more ethnically diverse communities often reported lower levels of trust—not only between groups, but even within them. He described this response as people “hunkering down.” Yet Putnam was careful to stress that this outcome wasn’t inevitable. In his view, the long-term trajectory could still be one of rising trust if institutions fostered integration and common identities. The critical variables were the scale and speed of demographic change, and the strength of institutions tasked with absorbing it. 

Political scientist Eric Uslaner advanced the debate by shifting attention from observable networks to moral orientation in his 2002 book, The Moral Foundations of Trust. For Uslaner, generalized trust isn’t simply a reflection of civic participation or rational calculation, but an ingrained belief that society is fair and the future is hopeful. In this sense, trust functions almost like an ethical disposition: it’s passed down across generations and thus proves remarkably “sticky.”

Yet, once eroded, it’s extraordinarily difficult to rebuild...

Trust also underpins democratic resilience. Research shows that when citizens lose confidence in one another and in institutions, they become more susceptible to populist appeals, conspiracy theories, and polarization. In this sense, Canada’s high-trust inheritance has acted as a shock absorber against global currents of populism...

Canadian scholars note that our immigration and settlement policies have served as institutional buffers. Yet these studies often drew on periods when annual immigration was in the range of 200,000 to 300,000. Today’s levels are several times higher, and the evidence base for what happens at this unprecedented scale is thin.

Canada has long been a case study in successful immigration. Research has found that while ethnic diversity can reduce neighborhood-level trust, strong national institutions and redistributive policies mitigate the effect. Other Canadian studies likewise find that the diversity–trust effect is strongest at the micro level (e.g., neighbourhoods) but tends to dissipate at larger scales where institutions and national identity buffer it...

Immigration levels today are unprecedented. In some metropolitan areas, more than half of residents are foreign-born. In 2021, nearly 47 percent of Toronto’s CMA residents were foreign-born, and several GTA municipalities—Markham, Richmond Hill, Mississauga, Brampton—are now majority-immigrant. Vancouver is at about 42 percent. Rising housing costs, long health-care wait times, and crowded transit raise the risk that institutions may no longer deliver the same integrative outcomes. There is, in short, less margin for error...

Europe, especially Scandinavia, has been a laboratory for studying trust under immigration pressure. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are historically the highest-trust societies in the world.

Yet research shows immigration has modestly lowered generalized trust, particularly where migrants cluster in segregated neighbourhoods. Swedish studies find that negatives tend to weigh more heavily than positives in diverse neighbourhoods, and the effects are strongest when segregation and socio-economic disadvantage overlap. Germany’s experience with Turkish “guest workers” illustrates how weak integration policies can entrench bonding trust within enclaves, which in turn slows convergence.

In Scandinavia, where trust has historically exceeded 60 percent, even small declines are taken seriously. Danish and Swedish policymakers debate immigration in explicitly trust-related terms, reflecting an awareness that their high-trust inheritance is both precious and fragile.

Cross-country studies add nuance. A 2020 meta-analysis found that while ethnic diversity often correlates with lower trust, effect sizes are small to moderate and heavily context-dependent. Where institutions are strong, education is high, and integration policies are robust, trust recovers. Where those conditions are absent, the negative effects are more persistent...

The empirical literature suggests three takeaways. First, immigration can lower trust in the short run, especially at the neighbourhood level. Second, over time and across generations, convergence is possible, but it’s not automatic. Repeated, structured contact across groups—through schools, public services, or civic programs—consistently improves outcomes. The policy lever isn’t diversity itself but how it is managed in daily life. Third, scale and speed matter. Smaller, gradual inflows are easier to integrate; rapid, large-scale inflows can overwhelm institutions and delay trust-building...

In earlier decades, immigration was significant but gradual, which gave time for convergence in trust, culture, and civic identity. Today’s scale compresses those timelines and strains the capacity of institutions to mediate the process.

It’s also far more highly geographically concentrated than historic patterns. More than 90 percent of newcomers settle in just four provinces—Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, and Alberta—and within them, overwhelmingly in a handful of large metropolitan areas. In Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, and Montreal, the scale of immigration is transforming the cities’ demography and putting pressure on housing, infrastructure, and social services.

Housing is the best-known example. A supply-constrained housing market is absorbing record demand from newcomers, which in turn has pushed affordability to historic lows. But growing evidence from other parts of civic life is notable too.

The Hub recently published an analysis, for instance, that showed in some of the country’s largest school districts, a third or more of students spoke neither English nor French. The school system is a bellwether. When more than 30 percent of students speak another language at home, the classroom becomes a primary site of integration. If schools succeed, they can generate bridging trust. Yet if they struggle, they risk entrenching divides.

These bottlenecks matter for trust because effective institutions are the mechanisms through which integration takes place. When institutions falter, both newcomers and existing citizens may lose confidence in them—and, by extension, in each other.

Spatial segregation compounds the problem. Rising housing costs have pushed newcomers into concentrated enclaves. The 2021 Census showed that 46.6 percent of residents in the Greater Toronto Area were immigrants, and municipalities like Markham (58.6 percent), Richmond Hill (58.2 percent), Mississauga (53.2 percent), and Brampton (52.9 percent) are now among the most immigrant-concentrated in Canada. Over time, the clustering trend has accelerated: in the early 2000s, visible minority shares in Mississauga rose from 40.3 percent (2001) to 53.7 percent (2011), and in Brampton from 40.2 percent to 66.4 percent, which points to intensifying ethnic concentration in suburban areas.

Economists note that segregation can produce “tipping points”: once a neighbourhood crosses a certain threshold of linguistic or cultural concentration, the likelihood of further out-migration by majority residents increases. That dynamic, documented in U.S. and European cities, may already be unfolding in parts of the GTA and Metro Vancouver.

This matters because segregation slows the development of bridging trust and increases reliance on bonding trust within communities. The long-run risk is that instead of convergence toward Canadian norms, we see the persistence of parallel yet separate societies."

Links - 9th November 2026 (Gender Differences)

Deep learning models reveal replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization - "Sex is an important biological factor that influences human behavior, impacting brain function and the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders. However, previous research on how brain organization differs between males and females has been inconclusive. Leveraging recent advances in artificial intelligence and large multicohort fMRI (functional MRI) datasets, we identify highly replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization localized to the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network. Our findings advance the understanding of sex-related differences in brain function and behavior. More generally, our approach provides AI–based tools for probing robust, generalizable, and interpretable neurobiological measures of sex differences in psychiatric and neurological disorders.
Sex plays a crucial role in human brain development, aging, and the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders. However, our understanding of sex differences in human functional brain organization and their behavioral consequences has been hindered by inconsistent findings and a lack of replication. Here, we address these challenges using a spatiotemporal deep neural network (stDNN) model to uncover latent functional brain dynamics that distinguish male and female brains. Our stDNN model accurately differentiated male and female brains, demonstrating consistently high cross-validation accuracy (>90%), replicability, and generalizability across multisession data from the same individuals and three independent cohorts (N ~ 1,500 young adults aged 20 to 35). Explainable AI (XAI) analysis revealed that brain features associated with the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network consistently exhibited significant sex differences (effect sizes > 1.5) across sessions and independent cohorts. Furthermore, XAI-derived brain features accurately predicted sex-specific cognitive profiles, a finding that was also independently replicated. Our results demonstrate that sex differences in functional brain dynamics are not only highly replicable and generalizable but also behaviorally relevant, challenging the notion of a continuum in male-female brain organization. Our findings underscore the crucial role of sex as a biological determinant in human brain organization, have significant implications for developing personalized sex-specific biomarkers in psychiatric and neurological disorders, and provide innovative AI-based computational tools for future research."
Damn neurosexism! AI algorithms just amplify human bias, so they need to be trained to prevent "harm" by pretending that men and women are identical

Young teens at play: Girls are egalitarian, boys are generous - "Using the decisions of 2500 girls and boys in three mini dictator games, this paper investigates how the social preferences of five cohorts of students (aged 12 to 16) evolve throughout adolescence. We find that at early ages (12 years old, 7th grade), girls tend to be egalitarian, boys are more generous, and <10 % exhibit spiteful behavior - with equal representation of girls and boys. The gender gap in both strong egalitarianism (with girls showing more egalitarianism) and weak generosity (with boys being more generous) doesn't seem to fade as they grow older."

Thread by @SpencrGreenberg on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Important but often overlooked: when groups differ a small amount in their means, they may differ *dramatically* in their tails.  For instance, in a personality study, we found males to have a little bit lower average compassion score than females (1.4 vs. 2)  [tails thread] 🧵 Small differences like this in averages are typically not noticeable or important. Most people are not in the tails.  If you knew only someone's compassion level and had to guess their sex from it, you'd be wrong more than one-third of the time (predicting optimally)! However, small differences in means can lead to much bigger differences in the tails.  Among just the most compassionate people in our study, there were about 2x more females than males (right side of the chart).  Moreover, the least compassionate people were almost all males! Similarly, on average, females usually test only a bit higher than males on peacefulness and forgiveness.  But, if we look at the tails of behavior, we see extreme differences. Males accounted for 96% of U.S. mass shootings and 90% of homicide convictions. I suspect that one reason so many people believe that groups differ much more, on average, than they really do (and engage in dichotomizing and stereotyping) is that tail behavior is sometimes much more visible than typical behavior. When you meet most people, you don't really think about whether their compassion level is slightly above average or slightly below average (and then correlate it with sex). You just wouldn't even notice one way or the other. But when you see that the vast majority of serial killers are male, that stands out.  Most males are not very low in compassion. But most people who are very low in compassion are males!  For instance, ~4x more males than females have psychopathy/sociopathy."

Meme - Diana S. Fleischman @sentientist: "This woman weighs 47 kilos, meaning there are almost no grown men in her weight class. But she might be able to beat up the average 13 year old boy."
🚨 Katherine Brodsky @mysteriouskat: "The number of unfit, unskilled men claiming they can "take her" merely based on the fact that they are men...  Yes, men are on average stronger. But take an unfit man in a somewhat similar weight class and she's winning."

Meme - i/o @eyeslasho: "14 and 15 year-old boys track and field records beat the world records set by adult women."
"100m 200m 400m 800m 1000m 1500m Mile 5000m 400m Hurdles
High Jump Pole Vault Long Jump Triple Jump Shot Put Discus Hammer Throw Javelin"

Keeping it Casual - "men and women’s sexual behavior since the 1960s actually fits better with the evolutionary psychologists’ narrative than with its sociocultural rival. The pill removes one of the main risks of casual sex for women: the risk of getting pregnant and having to raise an unplanned child without the help of the father. Despite this, more than a half century after it first appeared, women are still less willing than men to engage in casual sex. This doesn’t prove that the Nurture Only theory is false; it’s no doubt possible to come up with a non-evolutionary explanation for the tenacity of the sex difference. But the tenacity of the sex difference isn’t what we would have predicted on the basis of the Nurture Only theory. That should make us wary of any post hoc explanation for the persistence of the casual sex gender gap.  Other evidence presents a similar challenge to the Nurture Only view. Consider, for instance, the sexual behavior of lesbians. Unlike straight women, lesbians don’t have to worry about getting pregnant or about being alone with a more physically powerful partner. If these worries were all that kept women from jumping into bed with every good-looking stranger, then lesbians would have more sexual partners than their straight female counterparts. As various studies have demonstrated, however, they don’t; they have fewer partners... the social pressures don’t all point in the direction presupposed by the Nurture Only theory. Research has generally failed to demonstrate a consistent or pervasive sexual double standard in the modern Western world. Although the belief in the sexual double standard is still widespread, the double standard itself is much less so. Indeed, some people these days hold a reverse double standard, such that they judge men who sleep around more harshly than they judge women. Certainly, “slut” is an insulting term. But so is “prude,” and women who don’t engage in casual sex are sometimes called that – by men who want to sleep with them, for a start. And while “slut” is usually reserved for women, there are plenty of pejorative terms for men who sleep around: womanizer, dirty old man, letch, sleaze, “worthless, lazy, good-for-nothing, womanizing asshole” – and so on... the difference persists even when society pushes against it. As Donald Symons points out, men’s stronger interest in casual sex and sexual novelty has survived society’s best efforts to eradicate it... Arguably, though, the most persuasive argument against the Nurture Only view is that sex differences in sexual inclinations and choosiness can be found in many individuals who have no gender norms, no socialization, and little in the way of culture: that rather sizeable group, so often overlooked by psychologists, known as other animals. The differences aren’t found in all other species, but they are found in many, including most birds, mammals, and reptiles. And when we find the differences in other animals, evolution is the only reasonable explanation. Why should humans be different?... what the Nurture Only theory asks us to believe is that, in our lineage and ours alone, natural selection eliminated the normal sex differences, despite the fact that the selection pressure that initially created them was still operative. Why would it do that? It’s particularly perplexing given that, when we look around the world, we still find the sex differences that selection supposedly eliminated. Thus, the Nurture Only theory asks us to believe not only that selection eliminated the differences for reasons unknown, but that learning and culture then coincidentally reproduced exactly the same differences in every culture on record. This is not a compelling thesis."
As usual, the nurture squad believes in nurture only, while the "nature squad" believes both are important, and the nurture squad pretend that just because culture influences things means that nature cannot play a role at all
Patriarchy is so powerful it affects animals, once again

Paulo F. on X - "Why are there > men in leadership positions? Because it is men who have the most to gain from these positions. They guarantee more income, status & above all more sex. As for sex, it is men who, in reproductive terms, gain the most from it the more they practice it. That's all"
Dryborer on X - "Men are more interested in the status symbols of leadership and less vulnerable to the costs. Some men will neglect their wife and kids to get status. Very few women think it's worth it."

Bachman on X - "A weird result of 60 years of sexual egalitarian whitewashing is that every adult learns about gender differences via a series of private relationship crises--more or less excruciating--rather than that knowledge being embodied in institutions, ritual, and prejudice"

Four-foot-tall dwarf beats female pornstar in MMA fight before sparking brawl - "A four-foot-tall dwarf defeated two female MMA fighters including a pornstar during the latest instalment of Epic Fighting Championship.  Majit Suleymanov, who is a blogger and social media influencer, was fighting on the Russian label's latest bizarre MMA card. He was facing pornstar Alexandra Piskun who has previously fought with the promotion against a reality-TV star."

Meme - "The well-known sex difference in brain size is not explained by men being taller than women."

ZUBY: on X - "The social media fuelled 'gender war' is stupid. But it's also interesting.  I think an overlooked reason for it is despite all the "men and women are the same" claptrap, men think and talk like men, and women think and talk like women. And online, these styles constantly clash.  In real life, men typically soften our speech and manner when women are present. It happens instantaneously and perhaps unconsciously in most cases.  But on the internet, detached from being able to physically SEE (let alone cater to) every potential viewer or listener, this calibration is less likely to occur.  Online, men default to speaking as if their audience is other men (it predominantly is). Women hear or see this and think the tone is too 'harsh', broad, and 'insensitive'. And it often is. But that's how men speak when you're not around.  For the first time in human history, we have billions of men and women of all different backgrounds, all communicating and cross-pollinating ideas and communication styles.  People are privvy to more conversations than ever, and don't always like it because their particularly sensitivities are not catered to. They are often outright ignored.  Very few men actually hate women. But we aren't women and technology has its limitations.  Real world conversations are superior because there is more empathy and humanity. And fewer algorithms :)"
Feminists claim that treating men and women differently is sexist. But they can't walk the walk and get upset when men treat women like they treat men (see also: treating women like you'd treat Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - they'd be upset at that too)

Girls' under-10s football team lost every game last season beats boys to claim league trophy - "A girl’s under-10 football team which lost every single game last season has now triumphed in a league of all-boys squads to win a cup trophy.  The team from Woodlanders FC won the Huddersfield Junior Football League Vase trophy by beating rivals Howden Clough FC 3-2... The girls had a difficult start last season as an all-girl team in a league of boys’ teams and lost every game."
Clearly, this shows that women are equally physically capable as men, because puberty isn't a thing

Steve Stewart-Williams on X - "Sex differences in suicide rates by age (UK; 2017)
Note that a lot of sex differences follow a similar trajectory: They start growing in adolescence then shrink in later life. This applies, for instance, to fireworks-related hospitalizations, alcohol consumption, road deaths, and homicide rates."

Meme - Crémieux @cremieuxrecueil: "I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation for the finding that men are much stronger than women even when they're equally muscular."
Damn socialisation!

This Mixed-Gender Wrestling Match Ended In Tears… 🤼‍♂️
Instagram - Mens Media: "Bro ain't playing no games"
High school (?) girl wrestles guy from "BTWC" and epically loses and cries, with her hairband down over her mouthBTWC" and epically loses and cries, with her hairband down over her mouth

mark normand on X - "Me: Are women as horny as men?
Lady Friend: Definitely.
Me: Well I’d have sex with you, would you have sex with me?
LF: No way.
Me: Well there ya go.
LF: But I’m not attracted to you.
Me: Yeah, I’m not attracted to you either."
Left wing logic: if person A says he's starving and he will eat anything and person B says he's staving but refuses to eat most things you give him but loves burgers, person A and person B are equally hungrystaving but refuses to eat most things you give him but loves burgers, person A and person B are equally hungry

Defiant L’s on X - "Democrat Lindsey Williams: "Female bodies are just as strong and fast and capable as male bodies.""

︎ ︎venom on X - "YouTuber Jesse James West held a competition to see who’s stronger between tall, strong bodybuilder women and strong dwarf men.
> Dwarf men easily crushed them
> Women were very egoistic, serious, and competitive
> While men were just having fun
Why is gender equality forced when the difference in ability is pretty clear?"
Damn structural sexism and misogyny!

Gender stereotypes are often accurate but vary in magnitude depending on the criterion - "Research published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology found that while gender stereotypes are often viewed as misleading, they are surprisingly accurate. People correctly guess whether men or women are higher on a given trait about 85% of the time... People tended to underestimate gender differences in areas such as cognitive abilities, occupational distributions, and academic performance (e.g., GPA in different college majors). In contrast, they overestimated differences in personality traits, behaviors, and social attitudes.  The sensitivity correlations further supported the conclusion that gender stereotypes are largely accurate. When averaging across all participants in a given study, the mean consensual sensitivity correlation was .77, indicating a strong relationship between stereotypical beliefs and actual gender differences."
Most stereotypes are true

Rob Henderson on X - "Interesting: women carry a large reproductive cost (pregnancy). But men carry 20% more active metabolic tissue to aid in reproductive efforts (boosts competitiveness, attractiveness, and ability to provide) and is ultimately just as costly as pregnancy."

Evolution and Social Cognition: Contrast Effects as a Function of Sex, Dominance, and Physical Attractiveness - "Previous research indicates that males, compared with females, evaluate their relationships less favorably after exposure to physically attractive members of the other sex. An evolutionary model predicts a converse effect after exposure to opposite-sex individuals high in dominance, which should lead females to evaluate their current relationships less favorably than males. Women and men rated their current relationships after being exposed to opposite-sex targets varying in both dominance and physical attractiveness. Consistent with earlier research, males exposed to physically attractive, as compared with average, targets rated their current relationships less favorably. Males' relationship evaluations were not directly influenced by the targets' dominance, although the effect of physical attractiveness was significant only for men exposed to women low in dominance. However; females' evaluations of their relationships were unaffected by exposure to physically attractive males but were lower after exposure to targets high in dominance. These data support predictions derived from an evolutionary model and suggest that such models can be used to generate testable hypotheses about ongoing social cognition."

John Rain on X - "Men consistently score higher than women on measures of political knowledge. A 2018 study found that this difference cannot be explained by stereotype threat. (More generally, men tend to have broader general knowledge than women on average.)"
Time to demonize men and their politics because deferring to stances supported by people with greater knowledge is only good when it pushes the left wing agenda

Covfefe Anon on X - "Women having significantly less general knowledge than men is a real phenomenon and shows up in multiple areas - in this case a female PhD student in the field doesn't know basic underlying facts about the field - this is only surprising in that you can't predict where her knowledge will be lacking  Part of the reason our society is destroying itself is that it's decided upon a religious dogma of group equality across all domains which it then enforces by making it taboo to look at and think about the implications of the fact that groups are *not* all equally capable  How many people know about the general knowledge gap between men and women?  Few  How many studies are there on it?  Few - no one wants to try to publish a paper that has a "controversial" result when the result contradicts progressive religious dogma  Millions and millions of "little" things like this add up and only disagreeable, knowledgeable people can actually fit it all into a coherent framework"
Men are better at trivia than women

Covfefe Anon on X - "The general knowledge gap between men and women is huge and replicates across many studies"
Bryan Caplan on X - "I found that being male changes beliefs about economics by roughly 16% as much as a PhD in economics."

Rob Henderson on X - ""social scientists are more likely than civilians to chalk up sex differences to nurture rather than nature...even extends to differences between hens and roosters...this one area where laypeople have a firmer grasp on reality than many alleged experts""
Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن on X - "There are many such areas because "experts" are usually educated academics, and academic fields are highly susceptible to ideologies.   Once an academic in field A has been captured by an ideological lens, it is not only possible, but common, that all his judgments in his own area of expertise are distorted to the point that laypeople make sounder judgments.  Not because they know more, but because their ability to see the realities on the ground are not systematically distorted or corrupted by extraneous ideological incentives.   Hence the key conclusion here "Academia seems to impair people's understanding of the world rather than improving it.""
Trust the Experts! Even when they are wrong

𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒂𝒍𝒕 𝑶𝒇 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑬𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒉 on X - "When selling to a woman, show her that other women have it. Because women want what other women have. Explains their dating lifestyle - why they are attracted to players and married men
• Women value preselection
When selling to a man, show him that no other man has it. Because men want what what other men don't have. Explains their dating lifestyle - why they are more likely to commit to virgins
• Men value exclusivity"

Sex Differences in Mathematics and Reading Achievement Are Inversely Related: Within- and Across-Nation Assessment of 10 Years of PISA Data - "We analyzed one decade of data collected by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), including the mathematics and reading performance of nearly 1.5 million 15 year olds in 75 countries. Across nations, boys scored higher than girls in mathematics, but lower than girls in reading. The sex difference in reading was three times as large as in mathematics. There was considerable variation in the extent of the sex differences between nations. There are countries without a sex difference in mathematics performance, and in some countries girls scored higher than boys. Boys scored lower in reading in all nations in all four PISA assessments (2000, 2003, 2006, 2009). Contrary to several previous studies, we found no evidence that the sex differences were related to nations’ gender equality indicators. Further, paradoxically, sex differences in mathematics were consistently and strongly inversely correlated with sex differences in reading: Countries with a smaller sex difference in mathematics had a larger sex difference in reading and vice versa. We demonstrate that this was not merely a between-nation, but also a within-nation effect. This effect is related to relative changes in these sex differences across the performance continuum: We did not find a sex difference in mathematics among the lowest performing students, but this is where the sex difference in reading was largest. In contrast, the sex difference in mathematics was largest among the higher performing students, and this is where the sex difference in reading was smallest. The implication is that if policy makers decide that changes in these sex differences are desired, different approaches will be needed to achieve this for reading and mathematics. Interventions that focus on high-achieving girls in mathematics and on low achieving boys in reading are likely to yield the strongest educational benefits."
Time to do more about "patriarchy"
It seems that countries which are more feminist boost girls and/or suppress boys in maths, and feminism also generally demonises males, so that would increase the sex differences in reading

Boys behave differently to girls within hours of birth, Cambridge study finds - "Girls and boys exhibit sex differences within a few hours of birth, a University of Cambridge study has found.  For decades, biologists and sociologists have noticed that boys and girls show different behaviours and preferences growing up, but have been unsure whether nature or nurture was responsible.  Cambridge scientists have shown that, on average, infant girls show a natural preference for looking at faces within a few hours of birth, while boys would rather gaze at objects... There are major differences between boys and girls during childhood. Girls typically develop language earlier, speak in longer sentences and often have larger vocabularies than boys growing up.  Girls are also better at picking up non-verbal signals, such as facial expressions and tone of voice, and have fine motor coordination and more self-control.  In contrast, boys display higher levels of physical activity and are more adept at large motor movements such as running, jumping and climbing.  When playing, girls tend to lean towards co-operative, verbal and fantasy play, sometimes focusing on domestic make-believe scenarios, while boys gravitate towards sports, outdoor activities, construction sets and toy vehicles... For the study, 130 infants were presented with side-by-side videos containing either a social stimulus – a human face with natural movement – or a non-social object, in this case a popular desk toy or a set of swinging metallic balls known as a Newton’s cradle.  Researchers who analysed the videos of the babies eyes were unaware of their sex or what video a child was looking at, which ensured that they could not bias the results.  The team found that, regardless of sex, newborn infants generally preferred to look at the social stimulus.  But on average, female infants spent a greater proportion of the time looking at the social stimulus compared with male infants, while male infants spent a greater proportion of time looking at the non-social stimulus compared with female infants. Since the differences could be seen within hours of birth, it was likely that prenatal biological factors such as hormone levels and genetics contributed to the observed on-average sex differences, the researchers concluded... The team is interested in finding out whether these early sex differences contribute to later differences in children’s minds, brains and behaviour.  To test this requires a longitudinal study design, which is under way. The researchers hope that by understanding the origins of the earliest sex differences, scientists can better understand neurodiversity and conditions such as autism, which is diagnosed about twice as often in boys than in girls."
This shows the power of patriarchy - it's capable of socialising infants within hours of birth! If you disagree, that's neurosexism because male and female brains are almost the same

Compared to men, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable - "We identify a profound and consistent gender gap in people’s core life goals. Across nine studies using diverse sample populations (executives in high-power positions, recent graduates of a top MBA program, undergraduate students, and online panels of working adults) and over 4,000 participants, we find that, compared to men, women have a higher number of life goals, place less importance on power-related goals, associate more negative outcomes (e.g., time constraints and tradeoffs) with high-power positions, perceive power as less desirable, and are less likely to take advantage of opportunities for professional advancement. Women view high-level positions as equally attainable as men do, but less desirable. Our findings advance the science of gender, goals, organizational behavior, and decision making."
The gender wage gap is proof that women are discriminated against

Paul Graham on X - "In England, students choose just a few subjects (usually 3) to study in the last 2 years of high school, so gender differences in their interests become more visible than in the US."
John Papola on X - "Read another way, this is a smooth sliding scale from rigorous reality-based studies to complete groupthink bullshit. Men and women need each other. Women help us be kind. We help them be rational. It’s grand pop wisdom and it’s reflect in every clear revealed preference."

Do women talk more than men? It might depend on their age - "The stereotype that women are much more talkative than men is pervasive across many cultures, but a widely reported study by University of Arizona researchers in 2007 refuted the claim, finding that men and women speak roughly the same number of words per day – around 16,000.   A new, larger follow-up to that study paints a more nuanced picture, suggesting that women may be the chattier gender, but only during a certain period of life.   "There is a strong cross-cultural assumption that women talk a lot more than men," said co-lead study author Colin Tidwell, a clinical psychology doctoral candidate at the U of A. "We wanted to see  whether or not this assumption holds when empirically tested." Researchers found that women between the ages of 25 and 64 – the life stages of early and middle adulthood – spoke on average about 3,000 more words per day than their male counterparts. Significant gender differences did not appear in the study's other age groups: adolescence (ages 10 to 17), emerging adulthood (ages 18 to 24) and older adulthood (65 and up).   The researchers also discovered that people in general might be becoming less talkative, a finding they suspect is linked to an increasing reliance on digital communication."
Women talk more than men after all. This is more robust than Mehl's previous study of college students finding they talked the same, too
Amusingly, a September 2026 Psychology Today article written by a PhD and reviewed by someone else misrepresented the study and dismissed its findings. Anything to protect the narrative

RESPONDING TO SOCIAL JUSTICE RHETORIC | A Cheat Sheet for Policy Makers

RESPONDING TO SOCIAL JUSTICE RHETORIC | A Cheat Sheet for Policy Makers

SOCIAL JUSTICE
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Group entitlements
WHICH IS…
• The reframing of particular political demands as universal moral imperatives
• A denial of just rewards to individuals who follow the law

CRITICAL RACE THEORY
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Belief that people of European descent make society racist for their own benefit
WHICH IS…
• The view that racism is baked into the system and inescapable
• The view that racism is present even if no one is racist
• The view that all disparities in group outcomes are due to racist systems

DIVERSITY
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
An identity-based approach to society; includes only those who agree with Social Justice
WHICH IS…
• A violation of individual identity; enforced intellectual conformity
• Political quotas; an attack on merit and a form of soft bigotry

EQUITY
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Equality of outcomes plus reparations
WHICH IS…
• A violation of equality before the law
• A dismantling of the foundations of a free society
• State management of society by redistributing resources, opportunity, and access

INCLUSION
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Restricted speech and justification for purges
WHICH IS…
• Making people feel “welcomed” by banning anything they find offensive
• An attack on freedoms of association and speech
• An enforced separation of people by race (“neo-segregation”)

BIPOC FOLX
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Non-European people
WHICH IS…
• Used for neo-racist policies
(racism reborn as “progressive”) and stereotypes

IMPLICIT BIAS
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Unconscious bigotry as a result of socialization by oppressive systems
WHICH IS…
• Shown not to be significant on behavior above age 12
• Mind-reading that always finds what it seeks

DECOLONIZATION
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Removing European influence
WHICH IS…
• An attempt to delegitimize the U.S. as a “colonial project”
• Replacing universal equality with illiberal non-European “traditions”

RACIAL JUSTICE
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Racial favoritism
WHICH IS…
• Using anti-discrimination laws for unrelated political purposes
• A violation of equality before the law
• Neo-racist (racism reborn as “progressive”); group stereotyping

CULTURAL COMPETENCE OR RELEVANCE
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Catering to stereotypes associated with identity groups
WHICH IS…
• A blank check to tell people that they are not sufficiently “culturally aware” and must modify their behavior
• Indoctrination in Critical Race Theory; neo-racism
• An ineffective method with no scientific evidence

DISCRIMINATION
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Judgement based on experience, facts, predictions, and preferences
WHICH IS…
• Claimed to be inexcusable when exercised with respect to “minoritized” groups unless it makes them better off
• Claimed to be required against“privileged” groups to “level the playing field”
• A tool to achieve “equity”
• Illegal

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Environmental issues are race issues
WHICH IS…
• Using environmental protection for unrelated political purposes
• An ineffective and inefficient way to protect the environment

WHITE PRIVILEGE / SUPREMACY
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
European moral culpability
WHICH IS…
• Racist scapegoating, especially against economically disadvantaged Europeans
• Neo-racist (racism reborn as “progressive”); group stereotyping

SYSTEMIC RACISM
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Differences in outcome are always due to systemic biases
WHICH IS…
• An attribution of group differences to vague “systems” imposed by others
• An attempt to “dismantle” freedoms and to forcibly redistribute public and private goods

MICRO- AGGRESSION
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Small slights perceived as bigotry
WHICH IS…
• Weaponizing the taking of offense to control others
• Putting perceived impact above actual intentions
• Claiming that normal, everyday interactions are bigotry

HATE SPEECH
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
An expression of opinion that the accuser finds objectionable
WHICH IS…
• Usually constitutionally protected speech
• Usually a reflection of political differences rather than an expression of hatred
• A way to restrict the speech of others by claiming it poses a danger

ACCOUNTABILITY
WHAT THEY MEAN IS…
Using institutional and social power to force compliance
WHICH IS…
• Bullying
• Mob rule
• Heckler’s veto

OREGON ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS | DRS. BRUCE GILLEY, PETER BOGHOSSIAN, & JAMES LINDSAY

Links - 8th November 2026 (2 - Climate Change)

EVs are more reliable than petrol cars in the long run - "New Automotive stressed that its analysis could only account for roadworthiness, not battery condition.  An MOT examines a car’s brakes, tyres, suspension, steering and lights but does not measure battery health or charging performance, which can affect an EV’s performance.  Separate research by UK broker Howden Group has also previously found that drivers of electric cars were being asked to pay twice as much for insurance as those who own petrol-fuelled models.  The difference was blamed on a higher cost of repairs for electric models when something did go wrong."

Meme - Serafim Batzogiou: "The @washingtonpost has published a graph showing that Earth is close to its coolest temperature of the past 485M years, with most of the time temperature being tens of degrees higher. In fact Earth was much warmer even 1-2M years ago as we are now in an ice age interglacial."
zerohedge @zerohedge: "A funny thing happened as the WaPo tried to map out half a billion years of global temperatures and the "disaster of global warming""
"Scientists have captured Earth's climate over the last 485 million years. Here's the surprising place we stand now. An effort to understand Earth's past climates uncovered a history of wild temperature shifts and offered a warning on the consequences of human -caused warming."

The Left is losing the climate class war - "It is telling that, rather than gathering around such a programme on the Left, “green” industrial workers — such as those in the Danish wind industry — are rejecting environmentalism and voting for the Right. After all, the environmental movement still remains populated by middle-class activists brimming with moral certitude that their political project must include corralling the consumptive behaviour of ordinary people. That we could both save the planet and make life significantly better for the majority simply does not cross their mind. And as long as the Left simply renews the climate politics of the last 30 years, workers will continue to reject a platform that has nothing to offer them."
Punishing rich people and companies, as the author recommends, will still flow down to affect normal people, so. Left wingers see economic growth as evil, so good luck making life better for the majority

The hypocrisy of Australia’s Net Zero policy - "Once completed, the 86 towers will rise 200 metres above the tree line, polluting the view for miles. The federal government can ill-afford to press pause. It has pledged to make the east coast electricity grid 82% carbon-free by 2030. It will be no mean achievement for a grid that relies on coal and gas for more than 65% of its electricity.  The Australian Labor Party is making the task considerably harder by refusing to remove the long-standing moratorium on nuclear power. Of the dozens of jurisdictions with grids running on 80% clean energy or more, none have achieved it with wind, sunshine and water alone. Nevertheless, Chris Bowen, Australia’s pugnacious energy minister, told a business gathering last month his targets are “very, very achievable for Australia”. His timetable is ambitious: installing a 7mw wind turbine and 16,500 solar panels every 18 hours until 2030, supported by some 10,000km of new transmission lines... Their single-minded attention to climate change leads them to regard the destruction of natural biodiversity as a necessary evil. And so they plough on, blind to the realisation that, in Australia as elsewhere, the expansion of wind and solar is constrained by the scarcity of land. We are re-learning the lesson that broke the hearts of Australia’s pioneering farmers in the late 19th century — that even in a country as vast and sparsely populated as this one, you eventually run out of usable terrain. It was only a matter of time before the iron law of energy density checked the headlong rush for wind and solar. A report last month, jointly sponsored by the Universities of Melbourne, Princeton and Griffith, calculated that 120,179 square kilometres of land would be needed to produce enough renewable energy to achieve Australia’s Net Zero target. That is an area equivalent to 90% of the landmass of England, or half the size of the state of Victoria.  Understandably, not everyone supports the colonisation of this land. In April, Apple pulled out of a deal to buy power from a proposed wind development on the edge of the North Queensland rainforests at Upper Burdekin after a devastating environmental impact report. It found that constructing the wind turbine plant would destroy 769 hectares of koala habitat.   Elsewhere, politicians and environmental bureaucrats are quietly making trade-offs. A proposed wind farm on Robbin Island in north-west Tasmania will only proceed if the operators agree to it shut down for five months each year so as not to disturb the migration of the orange-bellied parrot. Construction of a wind farm in Victoria has been curtailed because of the threat to a local wetland bird species, the brolga... Tim Nevard, an adjunct professor at the Cairns Institute at James Cook University, describes the application to build on the site as ludicrous. “Biodiversity can’t be destroyed in order to stop climate change,” he said.  A virtue often ignored is the power of the forest to enrich the human spirit. The natural beauty of the rainforests and the Great Barrier Reef attracts 400,000 tourists a year to the region. But it also has a deeper, sacred significance to the Jirrbal people, whose ancestors were here long before the birth of Christ. Those who retain an attachment to the land through blood lines and tradition are distraught by the proposal... the Jirrbal people, in alliance with local conservationists, are trying to raise funds to fly to Canberra, a distance equivalent to London to Moscow, hoping to put their case to the minister face to face. It is a measure of the unequal battle between a small regional community and the renewable energy companies that they are relying on charity for the fare. For the defenders of Chalumbin, it’s an all-or-nothing fight. If this land isn’t safe from colonisation by big renewables, where is?"

The great Net Zero lie - "while the West is clearly responsible for the overwhelming majority of past emissions, future emissions are going to be driven primarily by newly emerging economies. Regardless of what we do in the West, the billions of people who still live in poverty in countries such as India, not to mention those in Africa, and who legitimately aspire to the comforts of industrialisation, will drive a colossal surge in energy demand in the coming years. Projected worldwide consumption of all types of energy 30 years from now is about 50% higher than today, most of it in poorer countries.  This usually invites two types of response: the Malthusian-pessimist kind, which claims that this is intrinsically unsustainable, and that the world can’t afford the massive increase in fossil fuels that the widespread development of the Global South would inevitably entail; and the naïve-environmentalist kind, which contends that developing countries can rely on solar panels and wind turbines to sustainably grow their way out of poverty. Both of these responses share one thing: they’re wrong.   What’s interesting, however, is how these two approaches overlap when it comes to Net-Zero polices in the West. Climate ideology has become a dangerous mix of end-of-days apocalypticism, with thousands of young Westerners now suffering from “climate anxiety”; of individual scapegoating, where ordinary citizens who bear little responsibility for systemic problems are guilt-tripped into thinking that they bear the burden for potential ecological collapse; and of eco-authoritarian hubris, based on the notion that the West needs to drastically accelerate its process of decarbonisation. A perfect example of the latter is Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte’s recent proposal to drastically cut back nitrogen emissions (70-80%) in the country’s farming sector...  the Netherlands is Europe’s largest exporter of meat and the second-largest agricultural exporter in the world, just behind the United States, meaning the government’s plan would cause food exports to collapse at a time when the world is already facing a global food and resource shortage — a disaster caused by the same global elites who are now peddling Net Zero.   This isn’t just happening in the Netherlands. In July, thousands of protesters stormed Sri Lanka’s presidential palace and forced the president and prime minister to resign. As in the Netherlands, the protests were sparked by the government’s decision to ban fertilisers and pesticides in favour of organic, climate-friendly alternatives — a decision that devastated millions of the country’s farmers and caused an artificial food shortage that plunged nearly two million Sri Lankans into poverty, and turned the country from rice exporter to importer. The defenestrated prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, was also, like Rutte, a devoted member and Agenda Contributor of the WEF; in 2018, he published an article on the organisation’s website titled: “This is How I Will Make My Country Rich by 2025”. (Following the protests, the WEF swiftly removed the article from its website.)   In light of all this, it’s easy to see why a growing number of people view Net Zero as either a case study in utter incompetence or, even more troublingly, as the latest example of “crisis capitalism”, whereby crises are exploited (and in some cases engineered) by ruling elites to push through restructurings of the capitalist system — usually by concentrating capital and power in the hands of fewer and fewer people in a manner that would likely face unsurmountable popular opposition in “normal” times. We saw it happen with the financial crisis, with the pandemic, with the war in Ukraine. Now it is being repeated with the climate crisis... there’s one thing that more than any other raises doubts about [elites'] good faith: the fact that while they keep coming up with increasingly fantastical solutions to CO2 emissions, they largely keep ignoring the only existing technology that can help us rapidly phase out fossil fuels once and for all — without disrupting Western societies, and without denying the rest of the world the living standards they legitimately aspire to. I’m talking, of course, about nuclear energy.   The reason nuclear energy is largely absent from the decarbonisation debate is that the latter is based on a lie: that we can generate all the world’s energy needs from renewable sources — primarily wind and solar power. This has become a mantra for much of the climate movement, but it’s a delusion. Aside from the problems arising from covering colossal tracts of land with wind turbines and solar panels (which require hugely polluting rare earth elements, most of which are in China) to meet the world’s growing energy needs, the fact is that both are intermittent and energy storage technologies don’t come close to what would be needed. Even with a high percentage of renewables, a stable, constant source of energy would still be needed — and that’s either going to be fossil fuels or nuclear energy. As James Hansen, the Nasa climate scientist who first warned the world about the dangers of climate change in the Eighties, has pointed out, nuclear is “the only viable path that has been proposed for rapid global decarbonisation”.  This, then, is the great Net Zero lie: it’s primary goal isn’t remedying the climate crisis. After all, a solution to the crisis stands right in front of us — only to be ignored by our political and financial elites. Faced with such deception, it’s hardly surprising that many are starting to question their motives; and in more and more countries, are starting to let it be known that they have had enough."

Meme - Bjorn Lomborg: "Alarmists: "World on fire!" Reality: By Aug 5, global burned area likely never lower than 2026. Disasters in France, Spain & Canada are tragic-but climate is global. Cherry-picking isn't science. Climate policy does near-nothing for fires. We need better fire policy (prescribed burns, let some burn) and better climate info"
"7 months through 2026: Record-low Global Burn. By August 5 2026, the world has burned less than any year, 2012-25"

Despite What You’ve Heard, the World Isn’t on Fire - WSJ - "As smoke from Canadian wildfires poured into American cities last month, the headlines poured out equally fast. Most blamed climate change. Canada’s public broadcaster informed readers the smoky skies had “only one true fix”: Stop burning fossil fuels. But the headlines seem to have missed the most remarkable fact about the wildfires: Canada is having a below-average fire year. In fact, the world is on track to a record low in area burned.  Ottawa’s own tally released July 9 showed 1.4 million hectares burned—less than a third of the 4.6 million hectares burned by the same date last year. Tucked into the “quick facts” of the government’s press release, beneath ministerial quotes about climate change driving ever more severe disasters, was the quiet admission that wildfire activity “remains below the five-year average.” That’s understating it: Satellite data weekly updated by the European Union confirm that Canada’s total burned area in 2026 by Aug. 5 was below the 2012-25 average the EU uses as a baseline.  And the statistical good news keeps coming. The U.S. this year has remained below its 2012-25 average, with its most recent measurement 20% below average as of Aug. 5. North America and South America are at a record-low burn since 2012.  Every continent on the globe is burning less—some much less—than usual. As of Aug. 5, Oceania has burned 14% less than its 2012-25 average and Europe has burned 35% less. Asia has a near-record low of burned area since 2012, clocking in at 41% below average. Africa is at a record low, with current burn at 44% below average.  Globally, we’re on trend for the lowest burn since the collection of that satellite data began in 2001, and likely the lowest since 1900. In the early 1900s, nearly 4% of global land burned annually, nearly double today’s rate. American annual burned area in the 1930s was about five times as large as its modern annual burned area. The deadliest aspect of fires has declined, too: smoke deaths. Air pollution from fires kills roughly 20,000 times as many people as the fires themselves. As fires have declined, the rate of annual deaths from landscape-fire air pollution has fallen substantially since 2000, according to a 2024 Lancet study. Given the current global population, that means fire pollution kills about 1.6 million—400,000 fewer than would have been the case had the 2000 death rate remained.  You wouldn’t know any of this from most media reports. Too much coverage cherry-picks smaller areas that happen to have lots of fire, ignoring everything else. With Canada this summer, scary pictures won out over compelling statistics. In Europe, wildfires in France and Spain repeatedly make headlines; that the Continent’s fires are significantly below average doesn’t. One of the most egregious examples of this narrow reporting was the coverage of the “black summer” fires in Australia in 2019 and 2020. The headlines were apocalyptic. But while the fires did come near heavily populated areas—such as Melbourne and Sydney, where many media outlets are based—the total national burn was “well below average,” according to the government’s annual environmental overview. This sort of media coverage leaves the public with the impression that the planet is ablaze when the evidence shows the opposite.  The positive news in fire statistics should give pause to climate alarmists and those in the media promoting their cause. To be logically consistent, if climate change gets the blame for every fire, it should also get credit for burn declining. The truth is that climate change isn’t the main determiner either way. A warmer planet does lengthen fire seasons and dries out vegetation faster, tilting the odds toward more dangerous fire weather. But weather only sets how easily a landscape can burn. Whether it burns—and how badly—depends mostly on people: how much fuel we let accumulate, how quickly we detect and douse flames, and how much land we farm, fragment and pave. The significant decline in area burned is due to a century of better land management, agriculture and firefighting.  The main culprits of the bad fire seasons Canada suffered in 2023 and 2025 are homegrown. A nation can have less fire overall but still impressive blazes: The same decades of aggressive firefighting that drove total burned area down also let fuel pile up. Canada has all but abandoned prescribed burning—deliberate, controlled fires that clear out the deadwood and undergrowth that turn ordinary fires into monsters. By one measure, the area in Canada treated with prescribed burns annually collapsed from more than 35,000 hectares in 1990 to 182 hectares in 2023, a 99.5% decline. The stock response from climate activists—that the only real fix is decarbonization—fails elementary arithmetic. Even if the entire wealthy world went net-zero by 2050, an astoundingly improbable and expensive policy, temperatures would change less than 0.2 degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century, with near-zero effect on fire risks.  Adaptation is what makes the difference. Modeling of Los Angeles’s Palisades fire shows that with no climate action, a similar fire in 2050 would burn about 7.2% more intensely. Yet even if the entire world managed dramatic emission cuts, the fire would still burn 5.5% more intensely in 2050. On the other hand, adaptation—prescribed burns, mechanical thinning, fire-resistant building codes and smarter zoning—could make that fire about 15.4% less severe in 2050 than it was in 2025, at a tiny fraction of the cost massive decarbonization poses.  Canadians and Americans who spent July coughing on smoke deserve better than a false diagnosis. Better forest management—particularly prescribed burns—will do more for next summer’s air than any emissions target."

No To LNG - Squamish | Facebook - "Hey Carney. If you think renewables can’t dramatically power a country, then look at China. The grid is the problem. Not the inability to create renewable energy. Stop putting money into fossil fuels. Put it into renewable energies and the means to get it to our communities: “China turned away enough clean energy to power Mexico for a year in the six months through June as its grids hit their limits, while networks in many other nations ‌such as Australia and Japan also failed to keep pace with a surging renewables buildout. Curtailments, or the pre-emptive rejection of wind or solar power because a grid reaches capacity, are emerging as a growing challenge to renewables globally and underscore continued reliance on fossil fuels.”"
Climate change hystericists are ignorant and don't realise this actually illustrates why renewables are bad because of intermittency meaning you need tons of wasted capacity and the implications for grid stability. Hell, the article already tells you it's a challenge to "renewables"

Meme - "Material per AVERAGE Terrawatt-hour per DOE Quadrennial Review
Metric Tons per AVERAGE TWh
Wind: 11x nuclear. Solar: 18x nuclear
Solar PV - >16,000
Hydro - 14,000
Wind - 10,000
Geothermal - ~5,000
Coal - ~1,000
Nuclear - <1,000
NGCC - 500?
DOE Estimate of Resources per Terrawatt-hour"
"Green" energy sure does require a lot of resources

A landfill of “renewables” = a land full of poison. - "Millions of solar panels are hitting their end-of-life cycle, and the world is completely unprepared for the coming toxic avalanche. By 2050, projections estimate up to 78 million metric tons of solar e-waste globally. This isn’t just a pile of debris — it’s the future of green energy waste hidden in plain sight. While renewables promise a clean transition, their end-of-life realities reveal massive logistical, economic, and environmental challenges. The industry often boasts that solar panels are “95% recyclable” in theory because of their glass, aluminum, and copper components. Yet economics consistently overrides technical feasibility. Proper disassembly and recycling of a single panel can cost $20 to $28 in places like Australia and the United States, while landfilling runs as low as $4. Without strong financial incentives or mandates, up to 90% of decommissioned panels end up in landfills rather than recycling streams. Each solar panel functions as an industrial “sandwich,” with layers tightly bound by heavy polymers and encapsulants. Extracting the microscopic amounts of silver and high-purity silicon requires energy-intensive chemical processes or thermal treatments that often exceed the value of the recovered materials. Newer, cheaper panels use less silver and thinner wafers, further eroding recycling economics and leaving valuable fractions locked away. When panels fracture or are crushed in landfills, heavy metals like lead and cadmium can leach into soil and groundwater. This creates the prospect of multi-generational contamination from dispersed, unmanaged waste sites. The shift from “clean energy” to persistent hazardous legacies becomes real if proper management fails at scale.   The crisis accelerates faster than many models anticipated. Solar cells naturally degrade over 25-30 years, but economic pressures drive even earlier retirements. Newer, higher-efficiency or cheaper panels prompt solar farms and homeowners to replace functional systems a decade or more ahead of schedule. This compressed lifecycle shatters the narrative of durable, long-term green assets and fuels an endless loop of waste generation.   Wind turbines add another dimension to the problem, particularly their massive blades made of fiberglass and epoxy resins. These durable structures resist easy recycling due to cross-linked polymers that cannot be readily melted or reformed. By 2050, significant volumes of blade waste are expected, much of it destined for landfills where the non-biodegradable materials will occupy vast space for centuries. Transporting blades longer than 50-100 meters creates additional logistical nightmares.   Electric vehicle and grid-scale batteries introduce further complexity. Lithium-ion packs contain valuable metals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel, yet global recycling rates remain low despite high potential recovery in advanced facilities. Varying chemistries, glued assemblies, and fire risks during disassembly make processes expensive. Improper disposal risks toxic leaks, even as second-life applications try to extend their usefulness...   Environmental trade-offs extend beyond local landfills. While renewables reduce operational emissions, their full lifecycle — including mining rare materials, manufacturing, and disposal — generates industrial waste streams that challenge sustainability claims. Scaling to meet climate goals without parallel advances in circular design risks trading one pollution problem for another, with cumulative impacts on land use and resources."
"Cheap" "renewable" energy isn't so cheap once you take into account recycling and waste management costs

The Dutch are filling gas wells with cement - "Readers will be familiar with the German nuclear phase-out. The Merkel and Scholz governments prematurely shut down twenty gigawatts of nuclear power. Those plants provided energy for 38 million households for less than twenty percent of the cost of gas. The Scholz government closed one power plant thirteen years before its expected retirement date. But few know that the Dutch government is doing something similar: it is pouring cement down the country’s gas wells. These wells are already inactive; destroying them doesn’t do anything for safety or the environment. The government is demolishing the wells to prevent a future government from reconsidering its decision to stop producing gas. The wells are located in Groningen, a province in the north of the country. Prospectors discovered the gas field in 1959 and soon realized it was the largest in Europe. Over the next 60 years, they extracted 2.2 trillion cubic metres of gas. Groningen earned the treasury lots of money – 363 billion euros – and gave Dutch utilities the ability to generate power without relying on foreign countries. But gas production in Groningen had local downsides. The field is large, shallow, and crossed by small faults, so extraction caused bits of it to shift. In 1986, the region started experiencing small earthquakes. The majority of these quakes registered beneath 1.5 on the Richter scale, too faint for most people to notice. But a small number exceeded 2.0, and a tiny handful 3.0. The earthquakes led vocal Groningers to demand an end to the drilling. Jesse Frederik, a smart Dutch journalist, has argued that locals greatly exaggerated the harmfulness of the earthquakes. But even if they hadn’t, there was a good case to keep drilling. The remaining reserves, some 500 billion cubic metres, are worth around €200 billion at current wholesale prices – enough to pay every single resident of the province €150,000 as compensation and still have 110 billion euros. And while gas alone is not good for the environment, more gas usually results in less coal usage, not less renewable generation. Norway is one of the world’s largest gas exporters despite its sincere concerns about climate change. (The enlightened Norwegians opened seventy more sites for drilling this past May.) But like many modern Western countries, the Dutch are increasingly unable to pursue policies with huge numbers of winners and small numbers of concentrated losers. Rather than buy off the Groningers, the cabinet decided to give in to them. In 2018, the cabinet promised to end gas production by 2030. In 2019, it accelerated that deadline to 2023. The concessions to the losers continued. In 2023, a parliamentary commission released a report announcing that the Dutch government had a ‘debt of honour’ to the people of Groningen, and that economic interests had superseded the interests of Groningers for too long. Hans Vijlbrief, the D66 minister responsible, then decided to fill the wells with 500 metres of cement. The Mining Council opposed the decision: they said that it was possible and preferable to mothball the facilities. The main scientific advisor to the government also opposed the decision: they argued (and continue to argue) that pausing production was no worse for the environment than plugging the wells was, and preserved much greater flexibility for the government in case of geopolitical necessity or economic crisis. The Groningen gas field still holds twice as much gas as the EU has imported from Russia since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. At market value, that gas would be worth enough to increase the Netherlands’ aid to the Ukrainian government thirteenfold. But the politics of the ‘debt of honour’ overcame the national and European interest. A specialised machine is now travelling around the province ripping out kilometres of pipes and filling what is left with thousands of tonnes of cement. It has destroyed 70 of the 300 wells this way so far. This is a story of a few concentrated losers defeating a very diffuse majority of winners. But it is also a story of a government proactively choosing to limit the country’s options. Destroying the wells does not change the likelihood of additional earthquakes. It does not change the world’s emissions pathway either, given that production had stopped. Its only purpose is to ensure that a future government, faced with different circumstances – a collapse in global LNG production – or different preferences – the Groningers decide that they would rather have more money than fewer tremors – has no ability to change course. The situation in Groningen is unique, but the effort to reduce options is not. The German Greens chose to speed through the nuclear phase-out, rejecting a pause proposed by their partner in government, the FDP. In the case of one reactor, Neckarwestheim 2, they issued the dismantling permit before the reactor even shut down. An Austrian Green minister cast the pivotal vote in the European council for the European Nature Restoration Laws against the wishes of their coalition, weeks before an election they lost. Restricting optionality ‘works’. Friedrich Merz opposed Olaf Scholz’s decision to shut down Germany’s remaining nuclear reactors in April 2023, but now says that it is too late to restart them. Future governments do find it difficult to reverse course if the alternative course has become impossible. But it comes at a cost. The impulse to make a decision irreversible signals a lack of confidence in one’s decisions. If a decision is good, it should be capable of surviving the judgement of voters. That the government feels the need to shield it from such judgement suggests that they are not sure it would. It is an act of institutional vandalism, raising the stakes of elections. It is also inefficient. Sometimes circumstances change in unforeseen ways. The demand for data centres has suddenly increased the usefulness of baseload power. Though Japan closed every reactor after Fukushima, it dismantled few; more than a dozen have since restarted. Michigan’s Palisades plant closed in 2022; it is now in the final stage of a restart. (Although it didn’t require much foresight in 2023 to think that gas might be geopolitically useful.) Options are valuable. It would be good for the current Dutch government to prioritize the interests of the Netherlands and Europe over that of Groningen. Failing that, it would be nice for it to allow future governments to reconsider its priorities. For now, the cement-pouring machine is destroying more wells."
Left wingers want to destroy their countries and they are so closed minded and unimaginative they can never imagine changing their mind or the world changing

Meme - "I am 99% sure that climate change is the universe's way of giving us a deadline to end capitalism" earthlyeducation: "extreme heat, drought and consequently wildfires are wreaking havoc all over the world. this video is from Serbia.... See more"
The left wing agenda is all connected. This is why they keep pushing climate change hysteria. It's easier to manipulate scared people too

Tangwa Abilu.🌿🌏🌾🍀🍃.SDG's. on X - "Stop asking what YOU can do for the climate. Start demanding what SHELL, TOTAL and 100 other corporations will do to PAY for the damage."
Climate hystericist logic: China is not responsible for its carbon emissions because supposedly this is because it produces stuff for the rest of the world. Even if only 10% of their carbon emissions are caused by that. But oil companies are responsible for their emissions even though almost all of them are linked to those who consume their products. Left wingers just hate the West

New/Mode | Make your voice impossible to ignore - "Tell the Canada Pension Plan to stop investing in fossil fuel expansion... CPPIB owes all of us a duty to maximize our returns without undue risk of loss. Fossil fuel expansion simply cannot be a responsible investment, with the high risk of assets becoming stranded as the global economy moves away from fossil fuels"
Yet left wingers bitch about how oil companies will profit from pipelines. Their claims are incoherent

Meme - blackleftiss: keeps mixing up coinstar & cointelpro @Boringstein: "youre going to see a lot of people saying this, to the point where it might feel trite from overexposure, but it remains true: the single most impactful action the earth could take to fight climate change would be the disbanding the US military"
The left wing agenda is all connected

Meme - "Africa: Climate Low Priority
Africans from 39 countries worry about unemployment, economy, health, water roads, education, crime, hunger, electricity, poverty, and corruption - but not climate
Percent cite as one one of top top 3 priorities
Unemployment 32.1%
Management of the economy 30.2%
Health 26.3%
Water supply 22.6%
Infrastructure/Roads 22.1%
Education 19.7%
Crime and security 19.3%
Food Shortage/Famine 14.1%
Electricity 12.6%
Poverty/Destitution 12.1%
Corruption 11.6%
Farming/Agriculture 6.5%
Wages, incomes, and salaries 5.5%
Democracy/political rights 3.9%
Services (other) 3.6%
Transportation 3.1%
Housing 2.7%
Political instability/Political... 2.5%
Rates and taxes 2.4%
Agricultural marketing 2.3%
Civil war 2.0%
Discrimination/inequality 1.9%
Loans/Credit 1.7%
Drought 1.5%
Gender issues/Women's rights 1.2%
COVID-19 1.2%
Land 1.1%
Communications 0.8%
Political violence 0.7%
Orphans/Street children 0.7%
Climate change 0.6% 31st of 34th
Sickness/Disease 0.5%
AIDS 0.1%
War (International) 0.1%"
Clearly, Africans are too ignorant to know that climate change will end the world and that they will pay the highest costs for it. They need to be educated on what's good for them.

Europe's Decline and Coasting on the Past

From FT comments (via Nick, 30):

Le Gun:

"The politicians are the symptom, it's the entitled voters that are the disease. They expect a nice life paid for any someone else because they either don't want to work in the available jobs or build a business or don't have the grit and discipline to gain the abilities to do so. Their answer is to hand the whole thing over the politicians to deal with on their behalf which the pols have duly delivered, effectively by liquidating the national equity build up over decades after WW2 to do so. Not much different in the UK.

Nature has a very clear way of dealing with such individuals or indeed entire societies because the laws of thermodynamics don't stop at your borders or even own front door. If you want a nice life every day you have to go out and fight nature to earn it because she gives us nothing for free. Every day you have to work with others to build or do something useful, every day you have to invest at real risk some of the surplus you produce for the future, every day you have to, even late in your career, do the job a bit better, learn a new skill as technology changes. Most importantly you have to determine that you want to create a life for yourself on your terms so you don't have to ask the state to thieve from someone else to pay for what you yourself have not earned. And you have to do it without resorting to becoming thieving smasher because you won't want to live in a society where we all play that game.

Everyone thinks the politicians can fix this. 5 minutes with any senior pol in power will completely disabuse you of such hallucinations. Good societies are build from the ground up actions of millions of peoples working together in a myriad of ways to meet each others needs, but the fundamental building block is a well intentioned individual with some set of values that means they can function with others as a part of the whole.

You can decide whether or not France and many other European countries have that most fundamental quality still in them."

Links - 8th November 2026 (1 - Hamas Attack Oct 2023)

Aizenberg on X - "There's a wave of people today sharing images of Gaza's destruction as prima facie evidence of "genocide," never mind that ~99% of the civilian population was evacuated and survived. Similar images came out of Mosul & Raqqa (see below) where there was also brutal urban combat."
Kristin Reid on X - "This is very simple. Your arguments make no sense. If over 70% of the structures in Gaza are destroyed but 97% of the population is alive, either the IDF can’t hit a target or they’re going above and beyond to avoid civilian casualties."

Seth Frantzman on X - "ISIS was defeated and almost completely disarmed by around 2019 in Iraq and most of Syria. It went from controlling a large area with some 50,000 or more fighters, tens of thousands of them foreign fighters, as well as having taken at least one Iraqi division’s worth of equipment in 2014…it was rolled back and completely defeated; in Mosul, which is a city and area around the size of Gaza with a similar population, ISIS was completely removed by 2017, and completely disarmed because all of its members were killed or removed from the field in that city and its environs. The fact is that Hamas can be disarmed and defeated, using a method as was used with ISIS in Mosul. It’s true that one can’t be rid of all Hamas supporters, but it can be disarmed. The fact is that Hamas is mostly disarmed in the West Bank, a success story of the PA and IDF. There is a way. It’s a question of whether there is the will to do it and to let people in Gaza live free from Hamas. It worked in Mosul and Raqqa; it can work but the local people need rights and freedoms to be free from the extremists like happened in Mosul and Raqqa. Also journalists can travel to Mosul and Raqqa today."
One terrorist supporter cope when the counter-examples of Berlin and Tokyo in 1945 are brought up is that that was a different time and war crimes were committed then too. But ISIS being a victim of "genocide" is a whole new level (then again, a further cope is that Israel was behind ISIS, so)

Meme - Andrew Fox-online: "Was Caen in 1944 a genocide? 5% of the civilian population killed in two months (3% in 3 years Gaza). 75-80% of the city destroyed (50.44% destroyed in Gaza, per UNOSAT). Rubble is not a metric of genocide."
It's "genocide" when the "West" is winning a war and left wingers want to stop them

Meme - Mohamad Safa @mhdksafa: "This is not Hiroshima, this's Gaza. Gaza is nearly 3 times smaller than Hiroshima, and Israel dropped 223,000+ tonnes of explosives, equivalent of ~15 "Little Boy" ATOMIC BOMBS, on Gaza. The world hasn't seen anything like the destruction in Gaza since Second World War."
Yoav Nahmias: "So why have fewer people died in 3 years of war in gaza than on single day at Hiroshima?"
Terrorist supporter logic: destroying buildings is "genocide"

GauleHero on X - "AND Japanese DID NOT accuse the US of a Genocide.... Japanese knew they started the War (much like Hamas did on Oct 7).... But Japanese had the courage to accept the consequences on them (which Palestinians have not be able to) from a war they started... 🤣🤣🤣"
Mr jheri curl on X - "It's a false flag. Hamas blew the buildings up themselves to try and turn the world against Israel"

Saggezza Eterna on X - "The Civilizational Suicide Pact: The Left Launders Terrorism to Destroy the West
The modern left operates as a parasitic organism feeding on the moral decay of Western civilization. Look at the streets of Paris today. It is the third anniversary of the October 7 massacres. While civilized individuals pause to remember the slaughtered, the progressive mob takes to the streets to defend the butchers. This behavior reveals the putrid core of the leftist mind. They possess a sickening obsession with the destruction of successful societies. They despise achievement, order, and strength. They worship victimhood and chaos. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez and Paris police prefect Patrice Faure attempted to ban Wednesday demonstrations organized by the collective Urgence Palestine. The state authorities correctly identified the dark reality of these gatherings. They cited a heightened terror threat, historically high levels of antisemitic acts, and the glaring risk that a march on this exact date serves as a grotesque celebration of the Hamas atrocities. October 7 was officially set aside for solemn commemoration. The radical left views this sacred grief as an invitation to riot. Naturally, the mob defied the law. They believe their self-righteous delusions grant them immunity from civil order. They flooded the streets with their anti-Israel venom. Consider the repulsive scene in Paris. A man violently breached a barrier to rip an Israeli flag from a woman's hands, screaming, "Nazi, you are committing a genocide." We must analyze the utter psychological sickness required to assault a woman displaying a Jewish star on the exact anniversary of the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. This is textbook psychological projection. The left harbors deep, violent authoritarian impulses. They project their own genocidal fantasies onto their victims to absolve themselves of their inherent guilt. They brand their violent intimidation as "pro-Palestinian solidarity." French authorities and Israeli outlets properly recognize it as a severe threat to public order and a blatant display of hatred. This ideological virus infects every facet of the left's political apparatus. Look at the supposedly separate street protests from October 6. Hundreds of thousands of students marched across dozens of cities, ostensibly complaining about school conditions. The Interior Ministry counted 266,000 nationwide and 56,000 in Paris. What did this grievance march actually look like? It was completely overrun with Palestinian flags and radical chants. The youthful left seamlessly blended their anti-Macron and anti-National Rally slogans with apologism for Islamic terrorism. They even cheered for the radical agitator Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The left has engineered an intersectional alliance of the perpetually aggrieved and the openly violent. There is absolutely zero distinction between a student complaining about a crowded classroom and an activist demanding the eradication of Israel. They share the exact same fundamentally destructive impulse. Now, the Association France Palestine Solidarité is organizing a massive national mobilization for Saturday, October 10 at Place de la République. They demand sanctions and an end to what they falsely label genocide, colonization, apartheid, and occupation. Read their official literature to see the mechanics of their deception. Their written call acknowledges the three-year mark since October 7, only to immediately justify the Hamas slaughter as a mere reaction to a blockade. They accuse Israel of a genocidal war and accelerated settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. These are entirely fabricated claims designed to provide intellectual cover for barbarism. The left launders terrorist propaganda through the sanitized language of human rights. The media conveniently fails to provide a solid breakdown of how many of these marchers are actual French citizens versus foreign nationals. The distinction is completely irrelevant at this point. Palestinian flags permeate the broader student protests because the ideological infection has already taken hold of the native youth. Whether they are imported radicals or domestic students, they are united in their profound hatred for the foundations of our society. The left aligns itself with the architects of mass murder because they share a common civilizational enemy. They celebrate slaughter while claiming the moral high ground. We must look at them with absolute revulsion. We must recognize them for the civilizational poison they truly are and ensure they never again hold the levers of power."

Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 on X - "NOW: "Globalize the Intifada" and Mamdani chant as Pro-Palestine protesters storm the 'Israelis for Peace, Union Square rally', occupying the vigil seats as speaker of the rally addressed the crowd. Video by @yyeeaahhhboiii2 | Licensing @FreedomNTV Desk@freedomnews.tv"
Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 on X - "NOW: "Long Live Hamas!" chants as protesters stormed and confronted the 'Israelis For Peace' vigil held at USQ, organizers say they hold the vigil regularly for the hostages and for Gaza. Video by @yyeeaahhhboiii2 | Licensing @FreedomNTV Desk@freedomnews.tv"
Guy Benson on X - "Perfect juxtaposition. The worst people in our society & they’re taking over a major political party."
We're still told that no one supports Hamas

Terry Glavin: The antisemitic nightmares are not stopping | National Post - "Within hours of the massacres, throughout the English-speaking world and beyond, there were celebrations. From Vancouver to New York, and from Los Angeles to Istanbul, the killers mobilized by Ḥarakat al-Muqawamah al-ʾIslamiyyah, otherwise known as Hamas, were praised as gallant resistance fighters. Heroes. An upwelling of antisemitic depravity burst its banks from the universities, the “social justice” milieu and all the activist networks that so routinely summon protesters into the public squares. The grisly mutation of Judenrein to Judenstaatrein — the denial of a Jewish right to life to the denial of the right to a Jewish state — was all of a sudden out in the open, jubilant and positively gleeful at the news of what had happened. Across Canada, by the morning of Sunday, Oct. 8, banners were already being hung from freeway overpasses, placards were already being hoisted and slogans were already being chanted at rallies exhorting solidarity with the heroic Palestinian “resistance.” And so it went, week after week, month after month. Campuses became sites of semi-permanent “protest” encampments demonizing Israel. A coordinated bomb threat targeted more than 100 Jewish institutions across the country. Synagogues were firebombed and vandalized. Shots were fired at Jewish schools in Montreal. Jews were besieged in their own neighbourhoods in Toronto. Jewish students were afraid to attend classes. Over the past two years, Statistics Canada has counted 1,731 hate crimes targeting Jews that were reported to the police... Israelis didn’t just wake up on October 7 to find themselves under assault from a ground incursion of the Hamas military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. The murderers of October 7 also came from Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — the PFLP, particularly, is deeply embedded in “anti-Zionist” networks in Europe and Canada. And almost immediately after October 7 Israel came under a steady bombardment of thousands of rockets and guided missiles from the Hezbollah-controlled territories in Lebanon. Within the year, nearly a quarter of a million Israelis had been displaced from the “Gaza envelope” along with more than 40 communities near the Lebanese border. The Houthi militants of Yemen, meanwhile, began a reign of terror targeting shipping in the Red Sea. The Khomeinist Islamic Republic of Iran, the key sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and about a dozen other terrorist proxies in the Greater Middle East, soon began targeting Israel directly. The “12 Day War” between Iran and Israel last year ended up drawing the Trump administration into a catastrophic and erratic operation that has spread through the Gulf states and dramatically disrupted global oil supplies... In Canada, antisemitic hate crimes appear to be on the decline, although Statistic Canada reports that last year, 71 per cent of anti-religious hate crimes targeted Jews, who represent less than one per cent of Canada’s population. According to a report from the “J7” group (representing Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the U.K. and U.S.), more than 23,000 incidents involving Jew-hatred occurred in 2025, including 20 killings. Canada is “one intelligence failure away from a mass casualty event,” the report found. And right on cue: In Belleville, Ontario, the Jew-obsessed 29-year-old Sean Ward who shot up the Sons of Jacob synagogue last month was thwarted in his apparent intent to carry out a mass shooting at Yom Kippur services, only by the bravery of a local police constable, Jeff Smith, who was gravely wounded in the encounter. Ottawa’s unaccountable inattention to the predicament facing Canada’s Jews may be subsiding, at long last. For whatever it might be worth, as of two weeks ago Public Safety Canada has now clearly identified “anti-Zionism” as a form of antisemitism. The finding has triggered “anti-Zionist” complaints, petitions and protests, as you would expect. “Anti-Zionism” remains a disfigurement of much of the NATO capitals’ popular culture and activist set. Israel’s diaspora ministry counts 262 anti-Israel events organized to coincide with the anniversary of the October 7 massacres. Most of them are planned for next weekend, including at least 14 events scheduled across Canada. Worldwide, the diaspora ministry counts 87 of the events as medium or high risk, owing to their proximity to Israeli diplomatic missions."

Toronto poet praises Oct. 7 in government-funded journal | National Post - "An internal review is underway after the latest issue of a journal funded by the Canada Council for the Arts appeared to support terrorism as a form of resistance and featured a poem by a Toronto writer who praises the events of October 7. The poem, called Flood, was written by Bahar Orang and is featured in The Ex-Puritan. In the piece, Orang describes the events of an October morning, a reference to October 7 — the deadliest day for the Jewish community since the Holocaust, when 1,200 Israelis were murdered by Hamas terrorists in 2023. “Praise the paragliders, their gentle ascension, their unbroken morning, and of course their triumphant descension…,” she writes... Orang also writes “praise the fighters,” and acknowledges their courage, cunning and patience. She describes “the tanks on fire, the enemy fleeing.” “Praise the missiles, the recognitions written in blood on each one, the names carved already into your own flesh,” she continues... Orang was a guest editor for the edition and wrote an editorial note explaining why the issue turns “deliberately toward armed resistance.” “Among our obligations as Westerners, one is straightforward: to honour that creation of possibility, even when — or especially when — it takes the systematically disavowed form of armed resistance,” she explains. “Taking resistance seriously in all its forms alters what we, as cultural workers, are able to perceive: the violence already structuring ordinary life, and those who fight it as political agents.” Orang’s biography on the website of Book*hug Press, which published her first book in 2020, describes her as an award-winning author who lives and works as a psychiatrist in Toronto. Her work is expected to be featured in Best Canadian Poetry 2027."
Weird. I thought no one supports Hamas

Meme - "FREE GAZA? GAZA WAS FREE. ISRAEL LEFT GAZA IN 2005 FOR PEACE. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? HAMAS TOOK OVER, RULED FOR 20 YEARS, STOLE $26B IN AID, AND SPENT IT ALL ON TERROR TUNNELS, ROCKETS, AND WEAPONS THEN ATTACKED ISRAEL AND BUTCHERED CIVILIANS"

Meme - echo5savage: "Hamas starts a war calls it Jihad, Hamas loses the war they call it genocide."
timothy.brown.73307634: "When I visited Israel in 2011, I noticed something that wasn't widely known. Muslims are free to roam in the Jewish districts. They own businesses and participate in commerce there. But, non Muslims are forbidden from entering the Palestinian territories. It seemed pretty apparent which side was hostile and who was occupying who."

Meme - Tamer Masudin @TMasudin: "Muhammad: "Gaza has no missiles and no army. Stop calling it a war."
Also Muhammad: "Hamas just launched rockets at the Jews!! Allahu Akbar!!! Glory to the resistance!!!""
Muhammad Mazen @mhmd_s09 (Translated from Arabic): "At 9 o'clock, the sound of the rockets launching from Gaza lifts the head, oh Lord, grant victory to the resistance and guide their aim"
Muhammad Mazen @mhmd_s09: "Gaza has no army, no air force, no navy, no tanks, no artillery, and no missiles. Stop calling this a war. It's a genocide."
Terrorist supporters know at some level that they're lying

Meme - Governor Kathy Hochul @Go...: "On a day of profound pain for so many New Yorkers, disrupting a vigil for the victims of October 7 while waving the flags of terrorist organizations is absolutely despicable. Jewish New Yorkers deserve to mourn in peace, free from hatred and intimidation. There is no excuse for this. None."
Extremely Careless @Shanghaibeast: ""Well. Well. Well. If it isn't the consequences of my own actions."" *Hochul in mosque and with Zohran Mamdani*

Meme - "When Egypt occupied Gaza, Palestinian terrorists attacked Israel. When Israel occupied Gaza, Palestinian terrorists attacked Israel. When Gaza was unoccupied, Palestinian terrorists attacked Israel. It was never about occupation. IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT JEWS."

Thread by @StarrJpost on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "The two youngest Palestinian child soldiers so far to have died in the October 7 War appear to be this 13-year-old and this 14-year-old. They join 29 other deceased Gazan child soldiers that have been confirmed so far. 🧵
Thirteen year old Hossam Muhammad Morsi was announced by Palestinian Islamic Jihad on Friday to be an operative of its Northern Brigade's Central Mobilization Unit. Facial match software and only one similar name in casualty databases indicate the correct identity. Morsi appears to have been killed in a September 9 incident alongside his 18-year-old brother Munir Muhammad Morsi, who was also in the Al-Quds Brigades Northern Brigade, but in the Martyr Husam Abu Habl Battalion. His Facebook page contains photographs of armed men with PIJ insignias. Another man who appears to be a relative, Abdullah Muhammad Morsi, was killed in a later incident. PIJ announced that he was also a member of the Northern Brigade's Central Mobilization Unit. Fourteen-year-old Khalil Mahdi Al-Bahtiti was announced on Friday to be a PIJ operative in the Gaza Brigade's Al-Tuffah and Al-Daraj Battalion. Malik Raafat Marzouq appears to have died at age 16. His name is unique in casualty databases, and while most photos on social media are of poor quality or when he was younger, they do pass muster of facial matching platforms. According to PIJ, Marzouq was an Al-Quds Brigades member, in the Gaza Brigade's Al-Tuffah and Al-Daraj Battalion"
Damn Israel killing defenceless children!

Scholars, legal experts among 6,000 rejecting Gaza genocide charge in letter - "Prominent academics, legal experts, and historians are among more than 6,000 signatories of an open letter released earlier this month rejecting as a “blood libel” the accusation that Israel committed genocide in Gaza... Taking the Gaza Health Ministry’s current death toll, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants, alongside INSS’s May estimate of more than 23,000 terrorists killed, the implied civilian-to-combatant ratio would be roughly 2:1. The letter also cites “the absence of mass starvation despite repeated claims of imminent catastrophe” and “the warnings given to civilians before attack,” and asserts that “All these factors were erased in the eagerness to indict Israel for genocide.” Meanwhile, the letter argues that Israel went to war after October 7 to break what it calls an “Iranian-led siege of terror enclaves” on its borders, while noting that anti-Zionists were already leveling accusations of genocide against Israel the following day. “The bitter irony is that Israel, home to half the world’s Jews, is the only country to face a sustained war of attempted genocide – from its inception in 1948 until today,” the letter states. Prominent scholars who signed the letter include Harvard professor and public intellectual Steven Pinker. Other Harvard-affiliated signatories include Harvard Law professor Jesse Fried and visiting scholar Anat Alon-Beck, a professor of law at Case Western Reserve University. Other notable scholars who signed on include historian Niall Ferguson, Israeli historian Benny Morris, Holocaust historian and former US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism Deborah Lipstadt, Tel Aviv University professor emerita and former Yad Vashem chief historian Dina Porat, historian and author Simon Sebag Montefiore, UCLA professor Judea Pearl, and Brandeis University professor emeritus Jonathan Sarna. The signatories also include John Spencer, chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point. Prominent legal figures include former Canadian justice minister and attorney general Irwin Cotler, Cornell Law professor Robert Hockett, Jeffrey Mausner, a former prosecutor with the US Justice Department’s Nazi War Crimes Unit, and Eugene Kontorovich, a professor of law at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School and director of its Center for the Middle East and International Law. “The genocide libel is a case study in the longstanding – and intensified post-October 7th – historical, moral, legal and normative inversions of fact, law and history,” Cotler said in a statement cited by CCFP. Political signatories include former UK prime minister Boris Johnson, Iraqi-born former UK cabinet minister Nadhim Zahawi, and former US secretary of veterans affairs Robert Wilkie, among others."
Weird. I thought all the experts agreed that Israel was committing genocide. Of course, the anti-Semites were claiming they were all Jews

Nicole Lampert on X - "There are several main thrusts to the genocide libel.
- One is Amnesty calling it a genocide even though they admit they have changed the definition of genocide to accuse Israel of it.
- One is an ‘independent UN report’ by three UN workers with a history of anti Israel activism which hasn’t been adopted by the UN.
- One is the ‘genocide scholars’ even though anyone (you don’t even have to be a scholar) can join the genocide scholars organisation and only 28 per cent of the 500 members voted in what was seen as a political hijacking.
- And finally you have South Africa and others bringing a genocide case at the ICJ. Nations behind this such as Ireland have pushed for the definition of genocide to be changed. The court has said it will allow the case to be heard even though Palestine isn’t a country and it’s being brought by a third party leading to confusion that this is a ‘plausible case’ for genocide rather than the more complicated idea that South Africa can plausibly bring this case. In plain terms: Palestinians have a plausible legal right, under the Convention, to be protected from genocide, and South Africa has a plausible right to bring the case. That is all the word “plausible” referred to. The Court did not find that it was plausible Israel was committing genocide.
In contrast you have facts. If Israel intended to commit genocide of the Palestinian people (and intent is the key word in the genocide definition) it would not have fed them, given them polio vaccinations, moved them to humanitarian zones when it tried to fight Hamas etc and there would be many, many, many more dead. That’s why you have these 6000 experts and genocide scholars saying it not a genocide. The genocide libel against Israel was started in the 1960s by the Soviets to attack America and Israel. It was pushed though the USSR via the UN and now trips off the tongue of antisemites everywhere who don’t understand that genocide is different to war. Antisemites and ignorants who basically want to call a people who were victims of an actual genocide, genociders to appease their guilt, steal Jewish victimhood, dismantle the case for Israel and label Jews the new Nazis."
Ofra Haza Stan Account on X - "Holocaust Inversion actually precedes the Holocaust, when Jewish Nazi appeaser Max Neumann called Zionists worse than Nazis. It was being used during the Holocaust when it was said “Jews are more Hitleran than Hitler.” It was used in the 1950s immediately following the Holocaust. Didn't just appear in the 1960s"

Meme - "A group of psychopaths say "We will butcher you and your children." So you put up a fence. People cry: "You've put these poor things in a cage!" Then they break down the fence and butcher us and our children. And people cry: "What, did you expect?! You put them in a cage!"" - Dr Sheila. Nazarian lranian-American Surgeon & TV Personality

Hamas plan to plant explosives near Gaza displaced persons camps revealed by IDF - "The IDF revealed on Sunday a Hamas document detailing plans to plant explosives in and around camps for displaced civilians in the Gaza Strip, which would then be used as cover in case their leadership needed to evacuate the sites. The document, written in April 2024, detailed a plan that explicitly exploited the civilian population for the benefit of the terror organization's leadership and showed intent to cause direct harm to Palestinian civilians for the sake of minor tactical advantages, like "creating smoke screens, distracting the enemy, and divert[ing] their focus and efforts away from the primary objective." Plans involved detonating improvised explosive devices around civilian camps as IDF troops approached in order to create panic, which terrorists would take advantage of in order to flee."

Leslie Kajomovitz on X = "I think UNRWA is running its own version of "pay-for-slay" The sharia law compliant "aid," which is exclusive for Muslims, is mostly distributed in cash. It prioritizes a unique definition "orphans," which Palestinians re-defined as, "a child without a FATHER" You do the math."
Leslie Kajomovitz on X - "An UNRWA teacher goes public on the indoctrination of children by UNRWA in Gaza. She said she believes the indoctrination has grown worse since October 7th and that if not addressed, another October 7th is inevitable. “If the upcoming generations in Gaza have the capabilities to make another attack, they will make it,” she warned. She says sixth graders are taught to blame Jews for Palestinian suffering, young girls are encouraged to continue Hamas’s war against Jews, and when she objected, a school administrator threatened to cut out her tongue with scissors. She called for an overhaul of Gaza’s schools, including changes to the curriculum and independent oversight of teachers. “It’s more important than disarming Hamas or changing who will govern Gaza,” she said. “Because this can change the future.”"

Jaimee Michell on X - "This is absolutely sickening. Coffeyeh, a coffee shop in Cedar Park, Texas, just outside Austin, is giving free lattes on October 7th to anyone who comes in wearing a keffiyeh and can tell them "what day it is." October 7th is the day Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups stormed southern Israel, killed ~1,200 people, and dragged 251 hostages into Gaza. It was the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. Turning the anniversary of a massacre into a coffee promo is sick. The Islamification of Texas continues."

WikiBias on X - "Wikipedia editor JDiala admitted today that since 7 October 2023, sockpuppets and Discord coordination have kept Wikipedia pro-Palestine. What drove the admission was a sense of having nothing to lose. On 4 October, he asked Wikipedia to lift his topic ban and wrote: "I regret my previous conduct." Editors rejected it, cited his Jew-tagging and antisemitic comments, and called for a site ban. Today he dropped the apology: "You can go ahead and site ban me." He said he had already won, that he would return under a different account, and admitted the coordination. The bias against Israel is an orchestrated campaign. Wikimedia is still treating it as a series of isolated editors."

Meme - "SELECTIVE OUTRAGE IS THE TELL
500k Christians killed in Nigeria
500k Christians killed in Syria
500k Christians killed in Sudan
400k killed in Yemen
300k killed in Iraq
250k killed in Afghanistan
Ongoing. Documented. Almost no global marches.
75k killed in Gaza: In a WAR, Of whom 50k were Hamas fighters... "Genocide!""

Dr. Eli David on X - ".@billmaher on Gaza: “It is not a genocide, it is a counterattack in a war… You can't just change the definition of genocide to mean counterattack in a war where people including civilians die, that's every war.”"

Even the Israeli Left can see the West is deluded about a two-state solution - "Ed Miliband may have proudly insisted that his politically convenient sanctions on Israel were to ensure that the two-state solution could not be destroyed by Israeli settlements. But, among the voters I spoke to ahead of the election, even the most optimistic peace-loving Israelis struggled to envisage a Palestinian state happening in this generation. The disconnect between the rhetoric about this conflict that our Parliament has spent so much time blustering over – time on a subject we have absolutely no influence over – and the reality on the ground, where Hamas has been regrouping in Gaza and gaining popularity in the West Bank, is staggering. They could be two completely different conflicts. Hila showed me a photo of a poster Hamas had put up in broken Hebrew on an observation post facing her moshav. “Netiv HaAsara, out of the Sinai and out of Palestine soon. Your destruction is near.” The intention was clear. Before October 7, most of Israel believed the consensus or “conceptzia” idea of containment: to allow Hamas the freedom to rule Gaza, the shared view that however bad their rhetoric about wanting to destroy Israel, however many rockets they periodically sent over, they didn’t really want to start a war. Until they did. And now for most Israelis, whatever their political persuasion, the blinkers have come off. And as much as we see the conflict through a particular lens – through the suffering of the Palestinians – that is just a small part of the picture. Zoom out and you see Hamas growing in power in the West Bank without having disarmed, a radicalised population, and Iran – hurt but not broken – still intent on destroying the country. Many Israelis feel that we in the West have on the same blinkers that blinded them to the enemies who harboured so much hatred. And that by being blind to the threat around us, we are encouraging it against them and ourselves. “As long as I hear voices coming Europe and America saying that Hamas is a legitimate organisation and they are only freedom fighters who want to liberate their people, I know there is no way for both me and the people in Gaza to have a better future,” says Hila. “We will be tangled in that story and all that is happening is Hamas is gaining its money and power.”... Israelis see that Hamas is still a danger which won’t disappear by itself, however many times Western governments pretend a few stern words will do the trick. “We want peace, of course we do,” says Hila. “We don’t want our children and grandchildren to grow up under the shadow of bombs and rockets. But how do you have peace when there is no partner for it?”"