Links - 7th October 2026 (2 - Cornell "Rape")

Inside a ‘rape’ kangaroo court at Cornell - "The written record of the day’s hearing, reviewed by UnHerd and first reported here, opens a window onto the one-sided procedures used by universities to impose after-the-fact accountability on one group and only one — accused young men... A manic rush to judgement has followed, one that is all too reminiscent of episodes such as the 2006 Duke lacrosse case and the controversy sparked by a 2014 Rolling Stone essay that alleged a heinous, hours-long gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity. Both of those earlier narratives ultimately unravelled under factual scrutiny, but not before upturning the lives of the accused and contributing to an atmosphere of paranoia and accusation on campus. The Cornell case has yet to be fully adjudicated. Yet already, the staff of The Cornell Daily Sun, the university’s main student publication, published an editorial headlined, “Cornell Won’t, We Will”, and doxxed the students... The accused students’ likenesses have been shared as well on social media, often with instructions to “make their images and names known”, or even to “remove their heads in a public setting” (the latter post has received more than 140,000 “likes” on Instagram as of the time of writing)... He asserts that when he saw the “free pussy” message on the group chat, he stopped by the alumni room to make sure nothing “bad” was afoot. He also insists that, when he stepped in, Doe was in bed but under the covers. Kretzschmar’s legal team apparently also provided the school with the results of a hair-follicle test, which turned up negative for ketamine... the inability of “male number 1” to maintain an erection and need for a “nap” during the threesome, not to mention dry-heaving by “male number 2”, suggest that both of the original men in the scenario were also deeply impaired... The legal situation, however, is fairly clear: barring facts still to come to light, she was not sexually assaulted, not according to the legal definition under state law. Attempts to reopen the case would seem to be motivated by the eruption of public outrage. And Doe’s own civil claim makes the weak argument that she was “incapable of consent” due to intoxication, without presenting any of the standards of proof required, which go well beyond the simple fact of intoxication. Even so, a young woman was involved in group sexual acts that she subsequently regretted, finding them alienating and degrading. In other words, Doe is mostly a victim of a campus sexual ethic that rests upon bare consent as its sole criterion of right and wrong. Try as they might, university and Greek-life officials can’t stop a student like Doe in her determination to drink away her own inhibitions and to place herself in sexually risky circumstances. And Cornell did try. In 2022, the university established a special office that implements anti-sexual-violence training in fraternities. Four years earlier, it prohibited the consumption of hard alcohol in fraternity and sorority houses entirely. Doe managed to drink anyway. Even before she left her own sorority for the evening, according to her own suit, she drank Tito’s vodka. This, in blatant violation of both the campus prohibition against hard alcohol in Greek houses and the sorority’s own rules. Then, at the two events that she later attended in Ithaca, the private vendors took measures to identify her as underage, marking X’s on her hands and giving her an under-21 bracelet. At one of the events, Doe’s sorority had designated “sober monitors” to surveil “their fellow sorority sisters for signs of excessive intoxication”, according to the civil suit. Once again, Doe continued to drink. We can implement ever stricter measures: this week, Ithaca’s mayor moved to ban Cornell student-event permits altogether. However, in a more or less free society, those who want to get intoxicated and have sex will find a way to do so; decades of efforts to prevent this have so far been in vain. Which is why the solution is not law, but judgement: among the young men, yes, but also the young women and the wider culture. Our narrow view of sexual morality holds that anything goes as long as there is consent. According to both our cultural values and the law, a young woman can engage in sexual activity with seven frat boys, provided it’s what she wants. Bonnie Blue, to some, is a feminist icon. As a standard for sexuality, this shows extremely poor judgement, and it’s no wonder both young women and young men make terrible errors. Given this ethical culture, all the system can do is mete out after-the-fact punishment to young men. But the unfairness of these processes only compounds the aggregate injustice. Savannah Bao, the Cornell adjudicator, was driving for at least 45 minutes, according to Kretzschmar’s appeal of the panel’s decision. This, he charges, was during a crucial portion of the Zoom hearing, in which another of the accused Cornell men, Scott Norris, was offering testimony that Kretzschmar saw as exculpating him. Yet her driving was far from the only procedural defect in the hearing. Earlier that day, Saland complained in another email to the Title IX coordinator that Bao’s “glasses clearly reflected a blue box with a white background on her screen as her head and eyes moved back and forth” — that is, she was surfing other windows, rather than focusing on the matter at hand... Cornell struck Kretzschmar with a disciplinary conviction related to a charge he didn’t even know he was facing. The original charges against him, recall, were rape and sexual exploitation. These charges arose from Doe’s allegation that Kretzschmar had seen her naked and snorted ketamine off her body, both without her consent. But Kretzschmar insisted, and the hearing panel implicitly agreed, that he hadn’t taken either step: Doe was fully covered with sheets when Kretzschmar entered the alumni room. And the hair follicle test indicated that Kretzschmar hadn’t taken any ketamine, whether snorted from a woman’s body or otherwise. Thus, he was exonerated of both rape and sexual exploitation. But Cornell wasn’t done. In the end, as noted, the school convicted Kretzschmar of attempted sexual exploitation solely because he had visited the alumni room after seeing the Snapchat messages and because of his own message to the group (“the alumni shit is not a bit. . . .”). Kretzschmar, the panel contended, “understood that a female was likely nude and/or engaged in sexual activity in the alumni room . . . and entered the room on that basis, intending to observe the same.” But Kretzschmar wasn’t, beforehand, apprised of the attempted charge, which is its own separate offence category in the university’s policies. Therefore, neither he nor his counsel could have prepared for or attempted to refute it: “attempt”, after all, has elements other than exploitation proper. Under Cornell policies, the attempt charge involves conduct “tending toward completion of the prohibited conduct”. As Saland, his lawyer, argued in the administrative appeal of the panel’s determination, “had Cornell informed [Kretzschmar] that he was being charged with Attempted Sexual Exploitation, … he would have focused his defense, arguments, questions as to witnesses, and review of the investigative file towards” disproving attempt. But Cornell denied him such notice, leaving him and his counsel helpless before what amounted to a legal switcheroo. This was, without a doubt, a grave violation of his right to due process and even of Cornell’s own rules — with which, courts in New York have repeatedly held, the university was obligated to comply. This is not a failure of any one institution, but of all of them. The university kangaroo court trampled on procedure and possibly the truth to achieve an ideological vision of justice. The court of public opinion has done the same. The police and prosecutors held firm at first, but since a new criminal case has been opened, we don’t know what the future holds. Both the young woman and the young men were ill-served by a culture that told them that in some situations, their behaviour was desirable. Both have had their college experience and lives derailed. The American university — and, indeed, US society writ large — desperately needs a new sexual ethic. It won’t do to punish only one side of the sexual equation, young men, especially not in procedurally deficient quasi-trials that bring shame to a rule-of-law society. The public is angry for reasons that no criminal process, no lawsuit, and no administrative hearing can fix."

Amy Diehl, Ph.D. on X - "1,200 sexual assault cases were filed at Cornell from 2018 to 2024. Most of those found responsible received minor sanctions that allowed them to remain on campus, such as probation or training. Only 7 ended in expulsion or dismissal."
Dre Baldwin | #WorkOnYourGame on X - "Highly misleading. I read and highlighted what Amy conveniently left out.
1. 1,200 *reports*. 162 cases. Not every report becomes a case.
2. The reporting system appears to be anonymous, as the school itself admits that they don’t always even identify the alleged victim.
3. The school is not “issuing lenient punishments“ because it is not finding that anything has actually happened via most of these reports.
4. “Expert”’Nicole Bedera has a full-time job “finding” these issues. If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
5. According to the school, “sometimes the victim chooses not to proceed with a case.”
6. How many reports come from secondhand sources “who may not have all the details.“ but it ends up in their “reports“ system. What the hell does that mean.
7. The Obama-era measures – reinstated by Biden and later removed by Trump – made it impossible for accused students to receive due process.
Do you know that if you were charged with sexual assault on many college campuses, you were not allowed a lawyer and could not even question your accuser. And a ruling would be issued. Do people even know this."

Imp on X - "Thought experiment. Which of the two scenarios seems more likely?
A) Cornell buried 1,193/1,200 sexual assault cases to protect rapists
B) The vast majority of these allegations were false
Gee - this one is really a thinker."
Feminists really believe that all alleged rapes were real rapes except for those proven to be false accusations, so

KenFarmer ⒶⓋ on X - "These are the feminists that other feminists are now accusing of cover up to protect the Cornell 7. University Title IX Investigator Samantha Freeburn and Christie White (among others) conducted more than 50 interviews, including 32 witnesses. They reviewed and included in their report:
7 accused participants
8 additional witnesses
12 days of testimony
Estimated 4,000 to 5,000 pages in the full record
More than 1,700 pages of hearing transcripts
and Audio-visual evidence.
Then they wrote a 99-page hearing panel decision.
It took them months to do. In a Title IX case hearsay is admissible and there is no cross examination. The bar is VERY low. So now we are supposed to believe that 3 to 5 self identified feminists, with pronouns in the bio and all, are the ones who did the heavy lifting in a coverup of a gang rape that has a video and or audio component? These men were not honorable or respectable in any way in all of this, but can't people see why there are questions in this case?"

Lauren Chen on X - "I see women asking "WHY AREN'T MEN DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CORNELL 7!" But aside from the fact that regret ≠ assault. Anytime there is a male-dominated attempt to increase safety (tough on crime, border security, deportations, Daniel Penny) these same women protest to stop it"

Ryan James Girdusky on X - "The fact the Jane Doe is also suing the bar for serving her one drink when she was underage shows how she doesn’t believe she should held responsible for anything she did leading up to the going to the fraternity"

temu temüjin 🐴 on X - "Listen guys, we need to stop being ridiculous with the idea that when you’re intoxicated you can’t consent. I’m a straight man, if I was in a room of 7 horny gay men there is no amount of alcohol or ketamine that would make me let them take turns on me without me objecting physically and verbally, or do ketamine off one of their cocks. I would have to be unconscious for that to happen. She was not unconscious, she was actively deciding the whole time who she was going to let do what, where, how many at a time etc, and everytime she voiced an objection clearly directly and verbally, they stopped, and yes she was intoxicated because she chose to enter an intoxicated state then kept choosing to increase her intoxication levels by accepting more and more drugs . So please cut the bullshit. All men know this, we know we can’t become drunk and let gay guys fuck us when we don’t want it, it’s not a thing that happens and to the extent it does we don’t go around suing over it. This isn’t some evil standard pulled out of our ass to enable rapists, we just are asking women to be held to the same standards we are if they want to continue to hold the same equal rights we do . That’s all . We simply don’t want them to have the power to have fully consensual sex that they wanted at the time, that they let happen without objection, only to weaponize it against us the very first time they’re mad at us over something unrelated to the sex we had Is that unreasonable?"

temu temüjin 🐴 on X - "Feminists fought for the right of every woman to enter the world of men. And guess what, that world is a blood sport. It’s a blood sport that you were, for many millennia, shielded from to the best of the ability of men to do so . In that world, there will be those who try to cheat you and lie to you and coerce you and deceive you and prey upon you and take advantage of your kindness and your naïveté and your good intentions exactly as happens to us when we don’t keep our wits about us. And we can’t put bubble wrap on everything to shelter you from every hazard you might encounter or every meanie or doo doo head or asshole you might meet. There are more important things we have to do than coddle people who entered the arena with blindfolds on and couldn’t handle it, all this nagging and crying is disruptive to the productive project underway. You can’t demand the police come and personally beat and jail everyone over every interpersonal dispute or an ambiguous hookup or situation you decided years later you feel weird about. This is not a kindergarten classroom, things are rough and confusing and dirty and ambiguous and dangerous, people are deceitful and duplicitous and of low moral character. this is what you were sheltered from and now it’s the world you’re in. There’s broken glass on the street, if you’re going to walk on it then wear shoes. You can’t walk around barefoot and then cry when your feet bleed. You CAN always just stay home"

Eric S. Raymond on X - "Anybody who's being honest about the Cornell rape accusations needs to confront a basic fact about the way many young women in American society behave. We are constantly exhorted to believe that intoxicated women are incapable of giving consent, and booze-lubricated sex should be considered rape. But young women not uncommonly get drunk in public to disinhibit themselves and signal sexual availability. This gives them the get-out-of-guilt card that they're nice girls, but the booze - or some guy - did it. I'm not writing today to either approve or disapprove of that particular mating behavior. What I'm here to point out is that the no-drunken-consent scolds are being deeply dishonest. This bullshit needs to stop. The pretense that intoxicated women don't routinely put themselves in that state to collect sexual rewards is - hypocritical is just not as strong enough word. It's corrosive. It's corrosive of trust. Corrosive of good morals. How can we expect young men to have any respect for what older adults tell them about sexual right conduct when we start by laying this whopper of a lie on them? It used to be we could sort of tolerate this nonsense. But the corruption of the term "rape", the removal of the assumption that physical coercion is involved, makes it much worse. A guy at a party has to deal with the possibility that the chick with booze on her breath who has obviously decided he's her stud for the night might turn around and hit him with a "rape" accusation that will ruin his life a week later. Even if he was objectively as kind and loving and willing to take no for an answer as anyone could ask for. Is this fair to anybody? It's cruel to men, likely to make them angry and uncaring. It infantilizes women. I don't have to render any judgment about the morality of the situation to to notice that it's explosively unstable. We actually hear serious calls to repeal the 19th Amendment these days... Because I'm not actually here to moralize about sexual choices or norms, I'm not going to try to offer a prescriptive solution to this problem. Except to say this: We really really really need to stop lying to ourselves."

Linda on X - "I think that the Cornell university fraternity president disinviting Lucy from the Halloween party triggered this series of events. Prior to that she felt both taken advantage of and responsible/embarrassed Both true. Being disinvited put a scarlet letter on her ie: this isn’t a mistake you should all wear - you’re just a slut who shouldn’t come around. I honestly think if they’d let her go to that party and been welcoming and showed her support she would have moved on. What she couldn’t do was allow herself to be branded as the gang bang slut barred from the frat house. Huge mistake"
Daniel Friedman on X - "Ever since the Dear Colleague letter in 2011 and the crackdowns on Greek life after Duke Lacrosse, fraternities have been training chapter presidents on how to protect their chapters from these situations. The Chi Phi president (who is not one of the 7 accused men) messed up, and that is why this has happened, and why the chapter was banned from campus. The basic rule is to act like a bar or a casino — when people get too visibly sloppy and intoxicated, you kick them out of the house so that the chapter isn’t held responsible for what happens to them. Girls who get high or sloppy drunk at frat parties are perceived as a huge liability risk precisely because every frat has some dumbshit brothers like the guys at Cornell who see a human lawsuit tottering around in a miniskirt and think “free pussy.” The fraternity president’s job is to kick the idiot drunk girls out of the party before the idiot drunk brothers take them into a bedroom to make national news. And when a girl demonstrates that she presents this kind of risk, the protocol is to ban her from the house. But you can’t ban her from the house afterward your brothers have already run a train on her. The fraternity president at Cornell let the thing that subjected his chapter to liability happen, and then he banned the girl from the house afterward, which alienated her and pissed her off. She was sending flirty texts to the guys right up until the president banned her, and then she cut off her ties with them and went to the cops. They should have been trying to make her happy. After what happened, that girl should have been the queen of Chi Phi. She should have been given an open invitation to every party and unlimited ketamine. The guy who proposed the threesome should have had to marry her."

Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani on X - "The allegations in the Cornell sexual assault case are deeply disturbing and gut-wrenching. Cornell University has failed this survivor. I fully support Governor Hochul's decision to name Attorney General James as special prosecutor in this case and look forward to the complete and extensive investigation that is to come. Accountability and justice cannot simply be values, they must also be delivered."
RAW EGG NATIONALIST on X - "We all know how deeply Zohran Mamdani feels about white boys having sex with white girls at college. He voiced his seething resentment about passed over by white girls at college in a series of writings in the early 2010s. I'm sure the Cornell case is deeply personal for him."

Hon. Vickie Paladino on X - "Attention young men — no matter how many bro podcasts they do, Democrats still hate you and are ideologically committed to your subjugation. They are still the party of ‘me too’ and toxic hardline feminism, and will always throw you under the bus in any situation where a woman makes an accusation against a man, no matter how obviously false. Whether it’s Lindsey Clancy, the Duke Lacrosse case, or this ‘Jane Doe’ the default position of Democrats is that women can do no wrong and men are automatically to blame and must be punished. They’re not shy about it. Remember this and don’t fall for their BS psyop where they pretend they’re not filled with contempt for masculinity for a few minutes during election season. The only thing that need be said about the Cornell case is that it’s disgusting and degenerate and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves, including the woman. Not an excuse to enact some feminist revenge fantasy."

Bridget Ayers on X - "New York Ladies - Get Ready to Pack Your Lipstick and Your Breathalyzer
“Can I buy you a drink?”
“Sure.”
“Great. First, blow into this. Now speak to the camera.”
Dating in New York is about to get complicated.
“Choosing to have a drink is not consent.” Well, yes. Obviously. But where’s the line? Two drinks? Four? Six?
What man is going to want to meet a woman at a bar, club, or party if a few drinks can later become part of an accusation that she was too intoxicated to consent?"

Covfefe Anon on X - "The thing about saying that this girl has some level of virtue because she didn't lie in the initial police report is that it doesn't put that in the context of her later actions which reveal how she understood her actions at the time. She goes to the police, she has a vague but utterly mistaken idea about the law (based on tumbr and reddit pro-woman delusion) and said words that would get those men imprisoned *under her understanding of the law*. When this understanding was corrected and she was told "no, you just described something that is totally legal" her reaction wasn't "oh, ok, good to know - guess that's legal and I just did something I regretted" - instead her reaction was "Oh? Well then *this* is what happened!" where she then described something that is illegal. There is no way should could have acted to make it any clearer that she views her words as magic spells that will compel other men to punish men according to her whims. Instead of smashing a skull with a hammer, she attempted to say words that lead to a skull being smashed with a hammer and *adjusted her words when the skull smashing didn't happen*. Some apparently intelligent people say "well, those men shouldn't have done a thing that would upset that girl if they didn't want her to file a false criminal complaint against them" - *which is an absolute inversion of morality*. "Can't do the time, don't do the crime" is pretty straightforward statement the encapsulates a key piece of wisdom - namely that "it is perfectly expected and acceptable that punishment will fall on me if I take actions that are prohibited". The "women can do no wrong" view is "well, you should have expected her to make up lies if she got sufficiently upset and now the legal system takes her lies as truth and makes it impossible for you to show she's lying". This changes the "justice" system to a "don't make women upset" punishment system - this is utter insanity and is no way to run a society and there's almost no escape from it under the current social rules because women simply use language in a different way than men do. If you tell her "you can report this crime if this crime happens and we'll do x to the criminal" many women just hear "if you want x to happen to someone, report him for that crime". Since words are how women act on the world it never even occurs to many of them *not* to use their words to accomplish their ends. Sane societies understood this. This is why the 54th Clause of the Magna Carta exists"

Gina Milan on X - "Jane Doe was so traumatized from getting a train pulled on her that she found the strength 3 days later to tell the Cornell frat boy who allegedly raped her, “i luv u king.”"
The cope is that this is a trauma response. Basically no means no and yes means no

Def Noodles on X - "Dude was literally grossed out by the chick. She tried to fuck him anyway. So he dips to McDonald’s to get away. Now he’s got deranged feminists trying to go viral by harassing him and calling him a rapist. What a sick world."

YinkaThatGuy on X - "Feminist arguments have somehow circled all the way back to: “Women need men to supervise their decisions.” She drinks too much? Men should’ve stopped her. She makes a bad sexual decision? Men should’ve known better for her. She regrets it? Men should’ve protected her from herself. So after decades of “women are independent adults”, the solution is apparently… treat women like children with male chaperones."

Robby Soave on X - "As someone who was involved in setting the record straight in the UVA / Rolling Stone rape hoax, I have serious reservations about reopening the Cornell case. It's important to note that the victim's initial statements to police are radically different from the claims she made in her lawsuit. That's why the DA declined to prosecute: No crime was was even alleged—she described consensual behavior at every key juncture. She has now changed her story completely."
Clearly, Robby Soave is not just a rape apologist, he is probably a rapist himself, and is definitely an incel. Doesn't he know that women never lie about rape?!

Gina Milan on X - "🚨 THIS IS WHY YOU READ THE RECEIPTS. I read the lawsuit against Cornell and was disgusted by how the school handled it. It looked like these seven boys were essentially allowed to walk away after writing essays. Then the original statements and text messages came out. And they CONTRADICT what she is saying in the lawsuit. The DA says her sworn 2024 statement described the drug use and sex as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. She reportedly said she was pretty okay with the threesome that started the night and put her intoxication at about a 5 or 6 out of 10. Then DAYS later, she texted one of the men she now accuses of rape. She said none of the sexual stuff was illegal. She said she liked being with him and another guy. And she asked to hang out and smoke with them again, just without the extra men and the ketamine. You can believe the boys’ behavior was NASTY. You can think the group chat was absolutely disgusting. I do. But none of that automatically makes them guilty of rape or the other crimes alleged in the lawsuit. What makes me angry is that the identities of SEVEN boys were blasted publicly while her own documented statements and messages raise serious questions about the allegations. If she is lying, I hope these boys pursue every legal remedy available and hold her accountable for the damage done to their lives and reputations. The lesson? DON’T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER. Especially when you haven’t bothered to read the receipts. 👇"

❤️‍🔥 Lady ❤️‍🔥 Reaper ❤️‍🔥 on X - "People need to stop bringing up the duke lacrosse case that was an isolated issue of a batshit crazy stripper who btw is currently serving time for murder because she stabbed her boyfriend"
andieiam on X - "Duke (2006)
Crystal Mangum accused three Duke lacrosse players of gang rape. Charges were dropped; the players were declared innocent by the North Carolina Attorney General. Mangum later admitted the story was fabricated.
Hofstra (2009)
An 18-year-old student accused five men of gang rape in a campus bathroom. She recanted within days after a cell-phone video showed consensual sex. She was charged with filing a false report.
Xavier (2012)
Basketball player Dez Wells was expelled after a fellow student accused him of sexual assault. Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters investigated, a grand jury declined to indict, and Deters publicly called Xavier’s process “fundamentally unfair.” Wells transferred to Maryland and later settled a lawsuit with Xavier.
UC Boulder (2013)
A student (Sarah Gilchriese) reported an alleged assault months after it supposedly occurred. Prosecutors declined to charge. The university’s handling of the case and related Title IX complaints drew federal scrutiny and later lawsuits from accused students claiming biased investigations.
UVA / Rolling Stone (2014)
Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s article “A Rape on Campus” described a brutal fraternity gang rape of a student identified as “Jackie.” Police found no evidence; Rolling Stone fully retracted the story. The account collapsed under basic fact-checking.
Mattress Girl / Columbia (2014)
Emma Sulkowicz accused fellow student Paul Nungesser of rape and carried a mattress around campus as a protest art project. Columbia’s process found Nungesser not responsible. He later sued; the university settled.
Clemson (2015)
Andrew Pampu was found responsible by the university after Erin Wingo claimed she was too intoxicated to consent. A friend later texted Pampu admitting they had lied. A jury awarded Pampu $5.3 million in a defamation/conspiracy case (later partially reversed on appeal).
Sacred Heart (2016)
Nikki Yovino accused two football players of rape at an off-campus party. She later admitted the sex was consensual and that she had lied to preserve a romantic relationship. She pleaded guilty to false reporting and served prison time. The players sued her and the university.
These cases share several features: rapid institutional action under Title IX pressure, limited due-process protections for the accused, heavy media or campus-activist coverage before facts were established, and eventual recantation, prosecutorial refusal to charge, or civil findings that the original claims were false or coordinated."

Allie ✞ on X - "The Cornell 7 case is consent-based morality failing its own stress test. What happened was legal and consensual, but that doesn’t make it right. Now the sex positivity movement is stuck between a rock and a hard place: they have to either admit they were wrong or argue against the facts"

Allie ✞ on X - "Arguably most productive thing that could come out of this case would be if the frat guys counter-accuse. Expose “drunk people can’t consent” for the double standard that it is. Remove the power dynamic that two drunk people hooking up means the man is automatically guilty"
Jane Doe raped a incapacitated guy by giving him a blowjob, after all

AF Post on X - "Cornell's Jane Doe says she tried to take more ketamine to "pass out" so she could claim rape. Follow: @AFpost"
Andy Ngo on X - "This is a statement the Cornell University female gang r—pe accuser provided to law enforcement: “I had become extremely uncomfortable with how this night was turning out, so my thought was, if I do ketamine again, maybe I will pass out … My thought was that if I passed out and these men had sex with me, then they could be charged with rape.”"

Eric S. Raymond on X - "I've now read a summary of what the Jane Doe in the Cornell alleged gang rape told police immediately after the incident. I must say that I'm struck by how well everyone conducted themselves, and I'm including the men. The woman asked for and got what she wanted. The men she said "no" to took no for an answer. Afterwards, she was up for having sex with male #1 again at a future time, which suggests that he gave the satisfaction he should have. If we're going to have a society of sexual liberty, this is what right conduct looks like. Maybe you think that it was disgraceful for a woman to request a drunken threesome, and for the men to fulfill the request. I won't argue that. When I've been offered sex by an intoxicated woman I found attractive, my policy has been to thank her with an appreciative kiss and then say "Ask me again when you're sober." But whatever this was, it wasn't rape. If women have the right to be treated as adults and make sexual choices for themselves, they have the right to make questionable, drunken choices too. The real villain of these piece is whoever talked Jane Doe into believing she was a rape victim."

Bridget Ayers on X - "Cornell University 2024 Rape Case
When I first read the headlines about this case, like most people, I was appalled. Seven men raped a woman for seven hours, and no one was prosecuted? Then I read Jane Doe’s statement, included in attorney Andrew Fleischman’s analysis, and I understood why prosecutors declined to bring charges. Based on that statement, I don’t see how they could have proven rape beyond a reasonable doubt. I want to be clear, I think the actions of these men were reprehensible. Doe obviously liked Male 1 and agreed to a threesome. But to then degrade her and invite other men into the room without her prior consent is unconscionable. The Snapchat messages allegedly telling others they could have sex with her for “free” only make their behavior more repulsive. But reprehensible behavior and criminal rape are not necessarily the same thing. Doe alleges she was pressured into taking ketamine and smoking marijuana while already intoxicated and was then raped by seven men over approximately seven hours before blacking out. Her statement, however, describes a much more complicated sequence. She describes voluntarily participating in sexual activity with multiple men. She cared for Male 2 when he thought he might vomit. She opened the door and let Male 3 into the room herself. When four more men entered, she hid under the covers, which certainly suggests discomfort, but she doesn't describe telling them to leave. She participated in taking ketamine with the group and later allowed them to snort ketamine from her body. Most importantly from a legal standpoint, her statement describes her setting boundaries and those boundaries being respected. When Male 1 proposed a foursome involving anl sex, she said no. It didn't happen. Later, she went with Male 1 and Male 4 to another room, did more ketamine and participated in another threesome. Around 5:45 a.m., she said she was tired and wanted to stop. They stopped. She went to sleep. Fleischman's analysis was that those facts did not establish first, second, or third-degree rape. New York law addresses forcible compulsion, clearly expressed lack of consent, and circumstances in which someone is legally incapable of consenting because of mental incapacitation or physical helplessness. But prosecutors still have to connect those circumstances to the specific sexual conduct occurring at that time. Being heavily intoxicated during the night doesn't automatically establish that every sexual encounter during that night occurred without legally valid consent. And that's where I think the criminal case becomes extremely difficult. Could there have been coercion? Absolutely. Every time she pulled back, more drugs appear to have entered the picture. There are memory gaps. Her intoxication became severe. Those are significant facts. But her statement also describes someone who could communicate, make choices, participate, refuse particular acts and ultimately end the encounter. One statement obviously doesn't tell us everything that happened that night. Other evidence, toxicology, witness accounts or omitted portions of her statement could change the picture. Would Doe have participated in multiple threesomes sober? Maybe not. Looking back sober at something you did while severely intoxicated could be horrifying, especially if it was completely outside your normal behavior. But that's different from proving rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Based solely on the statement Fleischman analyzed, I understand why prosecutors concluded they didn't have a criminal rape case they could prove."

Daughter of Wolves on X - "Look, there’s a very simple solution for all the women out there who don’t want to end up like Jane Doe from the Cornell 7. And here it is:
• Don’t snort K off a strangers d*ck
• Don’t agree to threesomes with several groups of men
And if you want to go really *really* extreme with it, due to how deeply this has affected you…
• Don’t agree to have sex with a man until he’s signed a legal contract with you first
As long as you follow these steps, I GUARANTEE you will not end up like Jane Doe"

The Other Right to Choose: Reversing the Trudeau Immigration Fiasco

Left wingers see mass migration as a way to destroy the West. 

The article doesn't talk about how using immigration to pay for the welfare state is an unsustainable ponzi scheme. 

The Other Right to Choose: Reversing the Trudeau Immigration Fiasco

"Back then Canada, despite being a “land of immigrants”, used economic criteria to choose whom it took in. It’s a useful reminder given how intense the national debate over immigration has become... the longstanding pro-immigration consensus among Canadians has evaporated. Immigration proponents respond by doubling down, accusing almost any opponent of being racist.

The fight is playing out all over the Western world, with politicians of different stripes juggling public discontent with dissent in their own ranks...

Until 2015, Canada actually had a system that worked exceedingly well, what one New York Times contributor described as “Canada’s ruthlessly smart immigration policy.” The reputation lingers; even today, some U.S. commentators on the right remain under the impression that Canada’s immigration system is rigorous, effective and far better than their own. Those of us who had a hand in its management back then can confirm it wasn’t easy or seamless even when it worked well. But it was far better than most. In a breathtakingly short time, however, this “model” system was blown up by the federal Liberals who, as National Post columnist Tristin Hopper put it, took immigration “to cuckoo town.”

The Trudeau government’s shocking mismanagement, if not deliberate dismantling, threatens Canadians’ short-term wellbeing, our future prosperity and our identity – all at once. Bombshell developments occur almost daily, like the March Auditor General’s report revealing massive “non-compliance” (i.e., fraud) and problems with “integrity controls” (i.e., incompetent oversight) in the foreign student visa system. All this has forced a debate over whether immigration is really just about economics and whether Canadians actually have a say about what our country will be...

Although the proportions shifted somewhat over the years, since 1980, more than half of Canada’s immigrants have been subject to points-based admissions, about 30 percent have been sponsored relatives and 15 percent have been refugees. 

As devised in 1967, the points system provided “an objective way to assess…prospective immigrants while at the same time upgrading the [average] skill level of new arrivals.” Implicit was the recognition that immigration would serve the needs of Canadians and our economy. The criteria, the weighting and the “pass mark” could be adjusted with changing priorities and market demand.

Canada’s system was quickly emulated by Australia in the 1970s, New Zealand in 1991 and the UK in 2008. And as already alluded to, it generated admiration and even envy in the U.S. A 2006 U.S. Senate assessment of our system determined that, while simply increasing the total number of immigrants “lowers the average skill level of arriving immigrant cohorts,” boosting economic-class immigrants does attract people who are more skilled, qualified and able to contribute economically. Emphasizing specific skills was also found to be effective at matching prospective immigrants to Canada’s economic needs.

In short, Canada’s points system worked as intended. Education was the attribute most linked to the best outcomes, followed by language fluency. The system ran successfully for about half a century, with points criteria used for most of the 9-million-plus immigrants Canada took in during that time. Immigration accounted for over 60 percent of the country’s population growth from 1967 to 2016.

This excellent system was rapidly overturned by the Justin Trudeau government. Annual immigration targets were raised by 54 percent from 260,000 in 2015 to 401,000 by 2021. While most of these immigrants were still in the economic classes, far fewer skilled workers were taken after the Covid-19 pandemic. Trudeau’s government also hoped to ramp up family class immigrants to 25 percent of arrivals but, for once, fell short.

University of Waterloo economist Mikal Skuterud highlights the 2021 bypassing of the points-based ranking of applicants’ human capital, to make permanent residents out of applicants with record-low scores. In the same year, the Liberals again bypassed the system to quickly admit 90,000 “essential” (i.e., low-skill) workers.

This fast-tracking not only upended longstanding policy but may actually have violated previous Liberal legislation. The Jean Chretien government’s 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act stipulated that every applicant had to be evaluated by an immigration officer. The constant flow of applications and finite number of staff meant that, five years later, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper inherited a 600,000-application backlog. It took 10 years to whittle that down by about 60 percent, underscoring the time required for basic vetting. Despite their 2020 plan calling for “adding resources” and “streamlining processes,” it’s hard to see how the Liberals could balloon arrival numbers without reducing standards and oversight.

How the Trudeau government really blew things up, though, was by facilitating the explosion of non-permanent residents – temporary foreign workers (TFW), foreign students, etc. By late 2024 this cohort totalled over 3.2 million people – equivalent to everyone in Greater Vancouver – or 7.5 percent of Canada’s population.

Historically Canada has needed periodic infusions of TFWs in limited numbers, for example in agriculture and tourism. But Trudeau seemed intent on making these a permanent and ever-growing, open-ended feature. Neither temporary nor limited, then. And it showed: youth unemployment zoomed upwards and currently fluctuates around 15-20 percent.

Overall reliance on non-permanent residents has grown dramatically and their areas of employment have spread far beyond the service sector that traditionally sought this class of immigrant. They now extend to professional and technical fields, the health care sector, manufacturing, even finance and real estate. This begs the question: can’t Canadians do these jobs anymore?

Employers seeking TFWs theoretically must prove that no Canadian is available to do the work in question, via what’s called a “Labour Market Impact Assessment”. But our national idiosyncrasies can result in awkward situations. In 2008, for example, owners of a PEI fish-processing plant pleaded with our minister’s office to hire TFWs from Ukraine because “no locals could be found.” Despite unemployment on the island being almost 12 percent, islanders could be exempted from seeking work, and remain on social assistance, for various reasons, including “family obligations”.

International students have become another labour pool and a major source of revenue for universities, their numbers exploding to around 1 million by 2023 – about three times the number in 2015. On average, they now pay over seven times the tuition Canadians do, and universities are cashing in – the University of Toronto deriving over 70 percent of tuition revenue from foreigners. Somnolent federal oversight has allowed upwards of 50,000 foreign students to be here illegally.

Eyebrow-raising aspects of the Liberals’, shall we say, expansive attitude toward immigration include Trudeau’s memorable assertion during the 2015 election, “The Liberal Party believes that terrorists should get to keep their Canadian citizenship.” Similarly, there’s his view that “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” – including countless people granted citizenship who’ve never even been here.

This couldn’t contrast more with the Harper government’s approach. In 2009, longstanding loopholes in the 1947 Citizenship Act were closed, including almost all of the so-called “Lost-Canadian” cases – people who had fallen through the cracks of the old law, a complicated collection that included “war brides” who married Canadian soldiers in the Second World War, and descendants thereof who assumed they were Canadian citizens. Our reforms added much stronger citizenship criteria, emphasizing the individual’s demonstrable attachment to Canada. Consequently, Canadian citizenship was extended only to the foreign-born children of Canadians, excluding grandchildren and on down the line.

In 2023, an Ontario judge overturned this legislation based on, what else, Charter rights. She ruled it unconstitutional to treat someone born of Canadian parents abroad differently from native-born Canucks – i.e., a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Despite this potentially extending citizenship to generations of foreigners, the Trudeau government chose not to appeal. Now untold numbers, whose forebears emigrated ages ago, or just stopped in Canada for a cup of coffee, are citizens – like the estimated 108,000 “Canadians” apparently residing in the Middle East. It could also include an astounding 10 million Franco-Americans, descendants of long-ago migrants to the New England states who may be only dimly aware of any familial connection to Canada.

Formerly, aspiring citizens had to demonstrate an “attachment to Canada” by actually living here for four years. The Trudeau government reduced this to three and eased language requirements for older applicants, channelling Yann Martel’s vision of Canada as the “greatest hotel on earth”...

We currently have as many as 500,000 “undocumented” people, i.e., illegal aliens, living here. Amongst the “documented” are 28,000 failed refugee claimants and others awaiting removal... they have multiple appeal options before they are, if ever, deported. This includes “ties to Canada” – often themselves derived from excessive, several-year-long delays in hearing claims, enough time to have a child in Canada and get them into pre-school. 

The nation’s over 12,000 certified immigration consultants and untold hundreds of Canadian immigration lawyers can help you with the appeals. Courts are often themselves highly solicitous, with judges and even prosecutors frequently going out of their way to lower sentences for serious crimes, or issuing outright acquittals or dismissals, so as not to imperil the defendant’s immigration prospects. This game has gotten too much for some, however, with judges in Quebec and Ontario recently taking the unusual step of publicly reminding prosecutors that their job is to go after criminals, not help them avoid deportation.

There are also currently almost 300,000 unprocessed refugee claimants – the largest number being from India, a rule-of-law democracy not consumed by civil war. Added to those is the annual flow of asylum-seekers, some 172,000 in 2024, compared to just 16,000 in 2015, the Harper government’s last year. Claims doubled in 2017 alone, shortly after Trudeau tweeted his soon-notorious global invitation to all comers. These “irregular arrivals”, plus the 77,000 taken through the annual humanitarian stream, totals almost a quarter-million people.

Now the bills are coming due. Health-care costs alone have quintupled to about $1 billion annually, projected to reach $1.5 billion by 2030. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has highlighted such “deluxe” free services as physiotherapists, mobility and hearing aids, home care, long-term care, etc. – all things Canadians can’t get or wait years to access. In response, the Liberals have reiterated their support for these services, Immigration Minister Lena Diab citing “humanitarian, constitutional and international obligations.” She even echoed Trudeau, asserting that “terrorists have a right to be citizens.”

Meanwhile, vetting of claimants is also off the rails. A blockbuster study by the C.D. Howe Institute released in February shows refugee acceptance rising to 80 percent from barely 40 percent in the early 2010s. Ireland, Sweden and Germany are at 30, 40 and 59 percent, respectively. Astoundingly, the study found that over 25,000 claimants had been approved without even a face-to-face interview.

Astounding because it’s clear that many such claimants are economic migrants, if not entirely bogus. Until our department imposed visa restrictions on Mexico in 2008 (subsequently lifted under Trudeau), scores of asylum seekers were simply stepping off jets at airports, while whole families arrived at the border in new SUVs. Not to mention the bands of Roma (Gypsies) from Czechia flying over for free healthcare and accommodation – until they were deported. We sincerely wanted to help some of the roughly 6 million people living in refugee camps worldwide – but instead had to deal with Guatemalan hairdressers deplaning in Toronto.

By contrast, within the Mark Carney government today lurks that same support for boundless “migration” common to much of the Western elite. Migration advocates are hard-pressed to explain, or refuse to state, what the “right number” to take in is, or if there even is one. A UN worker, from Israel of all places, once told one of my staffers that, “Let’s face it, Canada has an essentially unlimited capacity to take migrants.”

The problem with this view is the sheer number of people who want to come. And come they will if given the opportunity. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security recently estimated that as much as 8 percent of Nicaragua’s entire population may have entered America illegally during Biden’s Presidency.

This is a global phenomenon. A 2024 Gallup survey unsurprisingly identified an increasing desire to migrate. Thirty-seven percent of respondents in sub-Saharan Africa, 28 percent in Latin America and 26 percent in the Middle East said they wanted to move permanently to another country – upwards of 900 million people. Their top destination, no surprise, is the United States, 18 percent would go there, but Canada is second at 9 percent. That means over 80 million people want to come here, right now. And that’s only from those three regions.

Clearly, some of these people are genuine refugees. And a few others may have compelling professional, family-related or other reasons to move here. But most are simply seeking “a better life”. Like my family was. The question is, can we even debate how many we should take, where they should come from and whether we’re still allowed to pick those most likely to make a net contribution to our country?

Much like Godwin’s Law, which holds that social media exchanges rapidly descend into comparisons to Adolf Hitler, there ought to be an axiom for the migration debate – let’s call it Heinrich’s Law – that anyone questioning the value of continuous migration will be called racist. That’s why immigration has often been described as a political “third rail” – instantly electrocuting the political career of anyone who deviates from the consensus. Reaction to Alberta Premier Smith’s referendum proposal – with not just the usual local but international leftists shrieking about the “white supremacy” of Alberta’s “far-right leader” – and the federal Conservatives’ critique of the current system are cases in point.

Spotlighting the costs associated with vast numbers of asylum-seekers was deemed by the Liberals as “punching down” on the “most vulnerable” and, of course, racist. Andrew Coyne accused Smith and Poilievre of “blaming immigrants” for the strain on housing affordability/availability and social services. This despite the fact that credible non-partisan organizations like the Bank of Canada have put hard numbers behind what Canadians grasp intuitively or observe anecdotally.

Canadian unions, nominally representing Canadian workers, have joined the pro-migration crew. Of the estimated 2.8 million temporary migrants currently here, about 2 million will soon lose their status. In response, one union group proposes “a political workers movement [fighting] for the interest of all workers regardless of citizenship status.” [Emphasis added] The labour activists maintain that all 2 million “should have their permits extended and be given a ‘path to permanent residency.’”

The consensus is Laurentian-wide. Did you cause an accident killing 16 hockey players and maiming more? Retired Liberal ministers have your back. Do your kids need daycare while you await your refugee hearing? The Supreme Court of Canada says you have the same rights as citizens, and taxpayers foot the bill.

But you can rely on academia to offer the most, shall we say, pointed views on immigration, as with expatriate American Jason Stanley. The University of Toronto American Studies professor believes that “dismantling structural obstacles to immigration should be a primary political goal” and growing Canada’s population will allow us to “flex soft power, drawing a clear distinction between [us] and [our] fascist, xenophobic and white supremacist neighbour.”

Migration advocates seem to believe that, while there’s a rainbow of cultures with myriad diverse attributes, they are somehow qualitatively equivalent and vary only in degrees of goodness. Diversity is our strength because there’s no downside, at least none we can talk about. Try doing that and you’re subject to Heinrich’s Law. That’s the state of the debate in Canada.

By contrast, some Europeans are diving into Professor Stanley’s pit of xenophobia. The Continent has been positively flooded by migrants, totalling an astounding 87 million by 2020, or 12 percent of Europe’s population. A mathematician at the University of Amsterdam has calculated that non-Western migration to the Netherlands has been costing Dutch taxpayers €17 billion ($27.5 billion) per year since 1995. If the influx continues, the annual tab will soon reach €50 billion ($81 billion). The study found that only immigrants with a bachelor’s degree or higher were even net financial contributors over their lifetime; the rest, the large majority, were a drain.

The reliably liberal Economist magazine has reported some recent analyses of migration’s impact. The UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) found that high-wage migrants would be lifetime net fiscal contributors, even if they later claimed a pension and used health-care services until the age of 100. Low-wage migrants, by contrast, would cost British taxpayers over £1.5 million each.

Czech researchers, the article also reported, concluded that every one percent rise in migration to Germany causes a three percent rise in house prices (where’s Andrew Coyne?). And Mette Frederiksen, the centre-left prime minister of historically very pro-immigration Denmark, where immigrants make up 16.3 percent of the population, bluntly declared that open borders make it “impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you have a welfare society.” U.S. data from 2016 show that each immigrant having less than a high-school education, and each of their descendants, constitutes a net drain of US$163,000 in 2026 dollars, while a postgraduate contributes over US$565,000.

A separate analysis of employment in Denmark over 2010-2024 shows that even second-generation immigrants from non-Western countries lag behind Danes and immigrants from Western countries. The Danish government has consequently beefed up its integration policies, including a mandatory “work obligation” for those receiving social benefits, plus enhanced language requirements and community engagement by newcomers.

Still, most old-line European politicians talk change but don’t change. Not so long ago, they were lining up to repudiate their own migration policies: Germany’s Angela Merkel, “Multicultural [society] has utterly failed” (2010); France’s Nikolas Sarkozy, “The multiculturalism concept is a failure” (2011); the UK’s David Cameron, “State multiculturalism has failed” (2011); France’s Emmanuel Macron, “France will never be a multicultural country” (2019).

Revealingly, though, Macron also believes “white privilege” is real and has said, “There is not a French culture. There is a culture in France, and it is diverse.” One may disdain the French, but no French culture? And while they were all talking, migration continued apace, and integration of newcomers remained a rosy idea. After she trash-talked “Multikulti”, Merkel let in over 1 million asylum-seekers from the Middle East in 2015 alone, with Germany’s total migrant population since swelling to 15.8 million.

The probable results are described by researchers like George Mason University economist Garett Jones, who cites data showing how immigrant outcomes vary dramatically by source country. In Canada, second-generation Argentines, Brazilians and Indians do better than Colombians and Haitians. Statistics Canada shows similar variations in second-generation educational attainment.

Jones’ recent book tracks how immigrants’ values – like savings rates – and their views on trust toward government regulation and personal responsibility persist in their adopted countries. These views extend to as much as 50 percent of the second generation, and even beyond. In Jones’ view, “full assimilation is a myth.” Instead, countries should select for desirable values or, as he boils it down, “If you bring people in from frugal countries, you can make your country more frugal.” His overall advice on immigrant selection: “You better shop wisely.”

These conclusions make intuitive sense and support Canada rebuilding robust, points-based migrant intake using strict criteria. It also implies that Smith and Poilievre are onto something. Smith’s referendum questions seem eminently sensible. Should immigration into Alberta be lowered to a “sustainable” level? Should the province prioritize immigrants who can make a real economic contribution? Should those without permanent residency have free and equal access to all provincially funded programs, or pay something out of their own pockets? Should a temporary resident have the same access to every job opportunity as a citizen? And so on.

Poilievre similarly wants to slow population growth and tie intake numbers to economic indicators. “We need to have a growth rate that is below the growth in housing, health care and employment,” he says. For reference, prior to 2015 Canada’s annual population growth averaged 1.1 percent while its economy averaged 1.8 percent annual growth, including the downturn after the 2008-2009 financial crisis. In 2023 the population grew by 3.2 percent. The economy? 1.1 percent. The Conservatives have also proposed substantive amendments to tighten the porous asylum system under the Liberals’ border security legislation, Bill C-12, while supporting its passage.

Still the debate, such as it is, falls mostly along predictable lines: mainstream Conservatives preferring imperceptible social change and “progressives” wanting deliberate, dramatic transformation, stuff they can rub in conservatives’ noses... African-American writer Coleman Hughes believes deeper cultural concerns underlie what are framed as economic arguments. In conversation with author Lionel Shriver, Hughes notes that progressives are inconsistent, promoting “change” but opposing specifics like gentrification of neighbourhoods.

Hughes’ calm, measured analysis touches on the real social strife that has erupted over migration, whether it’s in Minnesota or Europe. The UK, for example, took a flat 250,000 immigrants per year until 1990. That more than doubled by the early 2000s and reached almost 1.5 million in 2023 alone. In 2024, 37,000 asylum-seekers crossed the Channel in “small boats”. Officials fear confronting immigrant-related crime, like the so-called “grooming gangs”, or violence at the ongoing pro-Hamas demonstrations after October 7^th, 2023. But those who, like comedian John Cleese, remark that London doesn’t “feel English” anymore are pilloried. Simply noting facts online, like the services and hotel stays provided to migrants, brings fines or imprisonment.

Shriver herself, whose latest novel tackles migration, believes the progressives’ view has more to do with their own moral self-image than with immigrants. They see migrants as “patriots-in-waiting”, despite themselves often hating their own country. Shriver similarly questions the belief that migration is somehow inevitable, that immigrants will “just come, like the rain.”

On the contrary, she says: we can choose...

People are cranky about immigration, but the focus remains almost entirely on economic aspects, and even here there’s no consensus on the seemingly obvious question of whether more people chasing essentially the same number of houses drives up prices.

There are several well-reasoned recent studies that outline how to improve our current immigration. By contrast, the Carney government’s attempt at reform via Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, is too little, too late. As critics point out, while Liberal talking points tout the “new government” taking action, it was the same party and in many cases the same individual politicians who created the mess we’re in now. How could they possibly enact profound reforms?...

A shrinking population appears off the table given our cradle-to-grave expectations and our social programs’ appetite for tax dollars. Except perhaps for Quebec. La Belle Province apparently prefers the Japanese model of “cultural preservation” with lower immigration. But Quebec’s birthrate of 1.3 will mean a declining population and, over time, less political clout. Who will pay for their social services is not mentioned, but one might guess. 

Many groups advocate increasing our population, whether to buoy the economy, placate diaspora communities or increase “diversity”. Some are no doubt culpable for the Liberals’ disastrous policies. The “Century Initiative”, a group of self-described “prominent Canadians” (i.e., Laurentian and/or Liberal), grabbed headlines saying Canada should grow to 100 million people by 2100. Proposing growth is fine, but to what end? Attracting the best immigrants just as birthrates in our main source countries also crater will be even more difficult. And the process is self-reinforcing; we’ll need the best to stay competitive in attracting and keeping newcomers.

Remaining attractive also means preserving what draws immigrants now. It means understanding that these conditions didn’t occur by chance, they had something to do with the people and culture that built it. And that a vibrant, innovative economy relies on the rule of law, a high-trust society and social cohesion. These in turn depend on a common culture and shared values which – note to progressives – are a lot more than mere “tolerance” (i.e., indifference). Preserving all that, if only to attract and keep newcomers, will mean, as controversial as it is to some, excluding individuals or groups with entrenched beliefs or cultural practices that undermine it...

Immigration serves Canadians and our children first and foremost, not primarily the possible future immigrants or their extended families, let alone the utopian abstraction of open borders with unlimited migration...

But the political minefields around such reform have already been laid. The Left believes our system – the very fact that we even choose – is a “moral failure,” that the “sorting systems” set up by wealthy nations “filter out the most useful people while condemning the rest to destitution.” But our gut instinct, that we can’t let in everyone and that not all newcomers are created equal, is confirmed by the various studies.

Regions with the most qualified applicants will fare better, resulting in source-country admission disparities. Cue up the accusations of “systemic barriers” and prejudice. Back in my day, our Liberal opposition already claimed we hated Chinese when admissions from Hong Kong dropped slightly...

Agreeing on and preserving whatever pixie dust makes Canada attractive to immigrants now and got us here in the first place is an incendiary topic. Academic ideologues view talk of “common values” as “code words” meant to sustain “unequal social hierarchies.” Preservation of “Canadian heritage” and “Canadian values” is thought to have a “racial subtext.” And if you believe that “white Eurocentric culture in Canada…perpetuates colonial power dynamics,” you might not like points-based immigration. Sadly, threads of such thinking extend right to the Liberal government benches."

Links - 7th October 2026 (1 - Palestine/Middle East Peace)

Norman Finkelstein claims that "Hezbollah represents hope"
Weird. I thought no one supports Hamas. Of course, terrorism supporters never disappoint

Finland cuts all funding for UNRWA

Four stabbed at Amsterdam Centraal – attack livestreamed on TikTok - "the Dutch outlet VKMAG and others have identified the perpetrator as Angelo Bryson.    Bryson is a personal trainer and known as the personality Superhuman Unchained.  According to Hungarian Conservative (HC), he describes himself as an influencer, entrepreneur and motivator with the slogan “discipline over motivation”.  HC writes that his profile also increasingly focused on Islam, Palestine and North African politics.  The Dutch website GeenStijl reports that Bryson recently converted to Islam and regularly participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.   Copenhagen Radio writes that he is an immigrant who recently converted to Islam, and that he has modelled his streaming career on the “genocide grifters” Sneako and Hasan Piker."
Damn Mossad false flag!

@freedomtoffend.com on X - "Are Jews simply fair game at the University of Guelph, Sheridan College and Humber Polytechnic?  I taught for roughly 15 years with an exemplary record, no disciplinary history, and no history of Muslim students accusing me of discrimination or mistreatment.  Then came one disputed screenshot of a LinkedIn exchange. The original exchange no longer exists.  I was suspended and ultimately fired.  Now compare my accuser, Prof. Wael Ramadan.  Ramadan has operated an enormous public political platform—thousands of posts and roughly 85,000 followers. I have preserved material he posted or reposted containing explicitly anti-Jewish rhetoric, including a video/comic describing Jews as “subhuman” and material featuring a Hamas figure calling Jews “devil worshippers.”  A Rate My Professors review accused him of antisemitism and warned Jewish students to examine his social-media record. Three human-rights complaints concerning him were filed and dismissed. Yet I can find no evidence that Sheridan ever disciplined him over this material.  And Ramadan was not some unrelated professor.  He was one of my accusers.  So maybe somebody should start asking the people who actually made the decisions.  Ask Melanie Spence-Ariemma how she managed to occupy overlapping roles in the process—as complainant, institutional accuser and senior decision-maker.  Ask Bill Rosehart, then Provost of the University of Guelph and now President of the University of Waterloo, why he participated in terminating a professor he had never spoken to—not once.  Ask why the institutions relied on a report they commissioned while allowing anonymous hearsay.  Ask why the disciplinary hearing was cancelled.  Ask why the people ending a 15-year teaching career apparently did not think it necessary to speak directly with the professor whose career they were ending.  Ask why the appeals process did not provide anything resembling a meaningful hearing.  And above all, ask this:  Why was a professor with a tiny LinkedIn following, no disciplinary history and no comparable record of hostility toward Muslim students destroyed over one disputed screenshot, while his accuser—with thousands of political posts and an enormous following—continued teaching without apparent discipline?  What neutral principle explains that?  Universities can issue all the statements about antisemitism they like. Judge institutions by what they do, what they punish—and what they tolerate."

Hen Mazzig on X - ""We don't want no Zionists here"  Democratic Congressional candidate Brad Lander, who is Jewish, is cursed at and thrown out of a protest in NYC.   Lander went along with extreme rhetoric against Israel and AIPAC during the primary to win votes, something he admitted made him "queasy" because it played into antisemitism.   Maybe the fact that he's being harassed anyway is a sign that next time, he should just stick to campaigning on his actual views."
CulexInTexas on X - "By "Zionist" they mean Jew. All Jews. Brad lander is a Jew. He can't be "anti-Zionist" enough for them ever because they want him and all Jews dead."
Mariama James 詹 瑪 麗 on X - "Not one person said stop, what are you doing, that’s Brad Lander. He’s been standing with us. He helped us to oust Goldman. Mamdani & Sanders endorsed him, nothing. As some of us have been trying to tell yall the past couple years, zionist is coded language, a dog whistle for Jew or ally to Jews and this movement/organization has a major institutional racism problem. This video reminded me of “good ppl on both sides”"

Leading Palestinian Activist Dismisses Mark Ruffalo Remarks on Gaza and Paramount - "It was a coincidence that I found myself talking to one of the leading advocates for Palestinian rights in Gaza this weekend, Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib. Alkhatib is a senior fellow at the think tank The Atlantic Council in Washington D.C. and has a new book out called “Hamas and its Two Million Hostages,” which argues for ending Hamas rule in Gaza and empowering Palestinians to have agency in their own land. I was interested in learning about the book and he agreed to meet via Zoom. But over the previous two days, a controversy had broken out over remarks made by progressive activist and actor Mark Ruffalo regarding Gaza and Paramount’s proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery. Ruffalo came under intense fire from Paramount itself — and by Sunday, four leading Jewish organizations — for tying the merger to the Ellison family and what he called Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza “which was built on an apartheid system of oppression powered by Oracle.”... “It’s mixing topics that do not need to be mixed,” he said. “It’s using the Palestinian issue as a cudgel that has little to nothing to do with a foreign policy subject. And it is meant to invoke a classic scare tactic – [that] of the omnipresent rich Jews who are in control of every aspect of society. “It’s bullshit to say Oracle is enabling genocide,” he went on. “There’s an abundance of capabilities that the US, NATO and foreign countries, the UAE, the Saudis, the Qataris, the Turks [use] – they contract with all of them. He went on: “I might not like the consolidation of the studios. It may be fair for some to push back on the consolidation of the media – that’s an entirely valid argument on its own. But to connect it to Gaza, and to proclaim that Larry and David Ellison are uniquely guilty of empowering Israel and enabling its activities against Palestinians and therefore this consolidation with Paramount is inherently evil – is clearly a manipulative effort by Mr. Ruffalo.”... Alkhatib is a somewhat unique figure in Palestinian policy circles because of his strident criticism of Hamas for what he believes was a disastrous decision to attack Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which brought so much suffering to his people and set back hopes for an independent Palestinian state. He was raised in Gaza and says he lost 30 family members to Israel’s war in the territory. He also says he lost hearing in his left ear due to an Israeli shell. Nonetheless, he advocates for what he calls “radical pragmatism.” In that vein he is unsparingly critical of the pro-Palestinian progressive movement in the West which, he believes, absolves Hamas of its responsibility by focusing single-mindedly on Israel’s actions and thus undermines Palestinian agency. He was typically unsparing of Ruffalo who he accused of grandstanding, and “a cadre within Hollywood who have promulgated the genocide narrative, without thinking critically about its implications, what it means.” “There are those who seek to make a point and there are those who try to make a difference,” he said. “It appears that time and time again Mr. Ruffalo is someone who is making a point at the expense of making a difference for the people of Gaza.”... “This is not about explaining the deal, but the furtherance of his already robustly radical platform and agenda. That has been about virtue signaling, not meaningfully moving the needle on this subject.”"

Meme - Mark Ruffalo @MarkRuffalo: "The accusation that I am antisemitic is appalling and fundamentally dishonest. Criticizing the actions of the Israeli prime minister, a military technology contract, or the executives who supply it is not the same as criticizing Jewish people. This critical and necessary dialogue is then dishonestly framed as being anti-Israel. To be clear, my views come from my own political convictions and should never be interpreted as hostility toward Jewish people, for whom I have deep love and respect. Everything I know about acting, activism, and humanism has been profoundly shaped by the Jewish friends, colleagues, and loved ones who have been integral and family throughout every point of my life. This merger has real consequences for real people, and for the entire country. Scrutinizing the Ellisons, including Oracle's business built on data, surveillance technology and government contracts, and the serious threat to editorial freedom and the loss of a livelihood for thousands of families, is fair and necessary. The $111 billion deal would hand one family control over CNN, HBO and Warner Bros., backed in part by foreign money whose influence on editorial decisions has never been fully explained to the public. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called for serious national security review, and regulators still haven't given the public a real answer. Until they do, the merger shouldn't move forward. Now is the time to dive boldly into all these issues, not step back or concede."
Eve Barlow @Eve_Barlow: "I'm so relieved for Mark's former friends."
Haim gozali @HAIM_GOZALI: "Mark Ruffalo says he's done talking to Jewish actors. Hey Mark, if that's really how you feel, maybe you should stop playing the Hulk too. After all, the character was created by two Jewish legends, Stan Lee and Jack..."

Meme - Bella Morris @Belorris: "Mothers in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran love their children as much as you love yours."
Michal/Michele @MichalSabra: "Mothers in Gaza don't love their children at all."
"I salute every mother of a martyr who urged her children to wage Jihad."
"My four children are martyrs I have no children left"
One cope I saw for a version of the first video turned into a meme was that by Jihad they meant struggle, not violent Jihad. Too bad this version includes the word "martyr" too.
The woman in the second video goes on to proclaim "I am proud of them. Alhamudillah. Oh Allah reward us for our calamity and grant us a better replacement. Listen Netanyahu we are ready to sacrifice more. More and more and more. Ya Allah take from our blood and souls and our children. And I also have two grandchildren. They are ready for the sake of Allah. It's all for the sake of Allah. Allah is the greatest and to him we give praise x2. Alhamudillah. And this is a zaghroota (sound made during celebration) for all the martyrs. Parade and celebrate the martyrs. Allah is the greatest and to him we give praise x3."
"Why are you so happy?"
"Why? I celebrate my children entering paradise! And I will join them. This is an honour for me!"

Human rights commissioner to intervene in appeal of VIU student suspended over Palestinian protests - "A Vancouver Island University (VIU) student has filed an appeal of a Supreme Court ruling upholding her two-year suspension for actions during Palestinian solidarity protests, and now the B.C. human rights commissioner will act as an intervenor.  Sara Kishawi, a Palestinian-Canadian was suspended by VIU in October 2024 for her actions during on-campus protests.  She filed with the BC Supreme Court to overturn her two-year suspension arguing that VIU acted outside of the scope of its authority, the university fettered its discretion in using a decision matrix, the decision was disproportionate and that the decision limited her Charter rights to engage in political expression.  Ultimately, a Supreme Court judge upheld the suspension, saying that Charter rights do not apply to student discipline...   “Freedom of speech and assembly are essential parts of our democratic rights,” said Kasari Govender, human rights commissioner. “My intervention will clarify that universities have an obligation to balance these values when deciding how to respond to protest activities on campus.”... Kishawi was suspended after four incidents between May and June 2024.  The first on May 15, when a group allegedly entered the roof of a building to hang a banner using rope and duct tape and the group refused to leave or identify themselves when asked by a security manager.  Then on May 16, a group brought a ladder to rehang the banner that had been blown back over the railing by the wind. Kishawi said she did not recall involvement in this incident.  On June 28, a group of students including Kishawi entered a building for a sit-in which the university said was loud and disruptive.  The final incident was when two people, including Kishawi, reportedly entered an employee-only area and wrote graffiti on two doors and an after-hours drop box and hung signs using duct tape. Kishawi said she did not recall this incident."
In BC, free speech means that you can vandalize and break into restricted areas if you push the left wing agenda. But if you peacefully and nonviolently express your opinion criticizing the left-wing agenda, you are violating human rights and must be crushed

Jewish prayer scrolls smashed, torn from residence doors at Wilfrid Laurier University - "Wilfrid Laurier University in southern Ontario is investigating after two Jewish prayer scrolls were smashed and torn from residence doors during the Jewish New Year holiday of Rosh Hashanah... A national report released in August found that 95.7 per cent of Jewish students had experienced or witnessed at least one antisemitic incident... In Guelph, a Jewish place of worship near that city's university has been vandalized with antisemitic graffiti twice this year."
Damn Zionists suppressing "pro-Palestine speech"!
Damn Mossad!

Steeve Strange on X - "In Gaza there are 0 Jews, being gay is a crime, and no elections have been held since 2006. THAT is apartheid. In Israel, 2 million Arabs are eligible to vote, serve as elected officials, and Tel Aviv has a Gay Pride parade. Stupid liberals scream "apartheid" at the wrong side."

Ms. Rachel Announces Herbie The Puppet Has Joined Hamas As A Child Soldier | Babylon Bee

Ivie Ani on X - "If you can’t say “Free Palestine” or speak out on any injustices against humanity across the world or at home without fear of losing a job, an opportunity, a connection, a title, or a platform, then you’re not free either and that’s the point."
From the people who spent years screeching that freedom of speech didn't mean freedom from consequences and canceling people for tweets
Of course if you go to jail for shattering a police woman spine with a sledgehammer that's an infringement on your freedom of speech but so-called White supremacists can't be allowed to peacefully gather because they are "hateful" and attacking them is free speech

Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia: New Hybrid Group Threatens and Confounds European Security Landscape - "Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyya (HAYI), an ostensibly Iran-linked organisation that announced its presence online in March, has claimed these two incidents in addition to more than a dozen arson and sabotage attacks against Jewish, Israeli, or Western-affiliated institutions in Europe in what appears to be a retaliatory response to the United States-Israel war with Iran.   As of this publication date, HAYI has claimed 17 total incidents in the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Macedonia, and Greece, while British law enforcement officials have detained at least 28 people in connection with the London attacks alone. The attack on 29 April prompted the UK to raise its threat level to severe. Definitive verification of HAYI’s responsibility for each attack from law enforcement appears to be ongoing. British security officials have said they are investigating whether there is a connection between HAYI and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps... It is not yet clear whether the Golders Green stabbing suspect was paid to carry out the attack, or whether HAYI falsely claimed responsibility as part of a disinformation effort. However, HAYI’s claim of responsibility, combined with its use of drones to threaten the Israeli Embassy in London in a separate incident in April, marks a clear escalation in tactics. Notably, before the Golders Green stabbing incident, HAYI-claimed tactics were limited to arson and sabotage of institutional buildings — essentially symbolic targets, and most importantly, nobody was injured.   This now apparent escalation in approach has also been coupled with a ratcheting of rhetoric in their propaganda. For example, in a recent online communique, the group singled out US President Donald Trump and his family for “retribution”, in contrast to the language of previous messages, which were more generalised (Figure 1)."
Proof that Mossad was behind Golders Green!

Jon Pegasus on X - "Aaron Bastani promoting the antisemitic "false flag" conspiracy for the Golders Green ambulance attack."
Lowkey too<. Clearly Mossad is so sophisticated that they hired 4 Muslims to do it to cover up their involvement, and erased all the evidence/i>

Vince Fiorito | Facebook - "Profit was the motive for attacks against Jewish schools and synagogues, not antisemitism. Police continue to investigate who paid for these attacks.  Since Zionists used these attacks to lobby the government to create laws cracking down on protests demanding Canada impose punitive measures against apartheid Israel, the most likely explanation is that these are false flag attacks and that Zionists or the government of Israel are behind them.  Also it's proof that many of our political leaders are either Zionists or gullible genocidal exterminator enablers. 😢"
Clearly, Iran could not have hired them and it must be Mossad

PALESTINIAN MOM: “It’s Beautiful To Have Many Kids & Push Them To Death” - "a Palestinian female TV host shared a “beautiful idea” on a Libyan TV show.  “Why do Palestinians give birth to so many children?” she asked.  “I heard a beautiful answer!” she said excitedly. “We give birth to so many children so we can push them to death, to martyrdom.”  The Palestinian guest then interjected with a nostalgic story about his late grandfather who used to say: “They [Israel] have nuclear bombs and we have ‘offspring bombs.'”  “They use the children for the resistance,” the woman responded. “They sacrifice them for martyrdom.”"
Proof that Israel is evil and massacring Palestinian children and is committing genocide

Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 on X - "Remember when a Palestinian explained to a Fox News host that “the children are the most expendable. You can have more.”"

Oli London on X - "Transgender man stands on top of an NYPD car and screams “Free Palestine” while clutching a Christian cross and Palestinian flag."
Dave Rubin on X - "Ok, I’m upping the amount. 50K for this freak to go to Gaza and try this stunt…"

Zeek Arkham 🇺🇸 on X - "As a former NYPD lieutenant, I’ll give you the inside scoop on these protests:  Cops hate them. No one wants to work these details. You actively try to avoid the desk in order to not be notified of these.  You get to the detail and usually the “Free Palestine” crowd is on one side of the street and the pro-Israel side is on the other. You then spend the next couple hours trying to stop the “Free Palestine” crowd from physically attacking the pro-Israel crowd.  After that, the “Free Palestine” crowd will march and shut down traffic. Along the way, they’ll disrupt sidewalk cafes, random passersby, and anyone who they think might be Jewish.   Then they’ll find a place to stop, where they’ll harass cops, take their names and shield numbers, and threaten to doxx them. They’ll even pick fights with cops and do things so the cops will be forced to move in and arrest them. That’s where they’ll film their infamous YouTube videos highlighting “police brutality.” Mind you, the cops have been actively trying to protect them the entire time, but propaganda is needed.  After a 15 hour day, the cops are finally cut loose, waiting for the impending CCRB accusations.  … and everyone wonders why recruitment and retainment are down."

Dan Burmawi on X - "Palestinianism is a dumping ground.  A catch-all container for every resentful ideology, every broken theory, every radical cause.  Marxists, postcolonialists, jihadists, queer activists, anarchists, environmentalists, anti-capitalists, and antisemites, they all pour their agendas into it.  It’s the perfect host, just vague enough to absorb anything, just angry enough to justify everything.  Muslims use it to legitimize jihad and martyrdom under the guise of resistance to occupation.  Marxists use it to revive class warfare under the guise of anti-Zionism.  Postcolonial theorists use it to attack the West.  Intersectional activists use it to link Palestine to trans rights and racial justice in a grotesque logic of shared victimhood.  Academics use it to inject critical theory into international politics.  Antisemites use it to camouflage their hatred as humanitarianism.  Palestinianism is where incompatible ideologies suddenly find unity.  What binds them isn’t a coherent vision of justice, but a shared enemy: Israel, the West, the Judeo-Christian world, the structure, the order.  Palestinianism has become the dumping ground where failed ideologies go to be reborn."
The left wing agenda is all connected

Firdaus Wong Tells Malaysian Muslims: You Cry For Gaza, But You Dehumanise The Rohingya Next Door - "A Malaysian Islamic preacher has urged his own community to extend the same compassion they show oppressed Muslims abroad to Rohingya refugees living in Malaysia.  Firdaus Wong Wai Hung, president of Multiracial Reverted Muslims (MRM), made the remarks at the New Muslim Community Conference, where he urged Malaysians not to strip Rohingya refugees of their humanity...   Wong drew a direct line between the dehumanisation of Rohingya refugees in Malaysia and historical atrocities — including the Nazi treatment of Jews and the ongoing situation in Palestine — and asked why Malaysian Muslims, who are vocal about injustice overseas, apply a different standard to refugees living among them.  He acknowledged that Rohingya do not hold the same legal rights as Malaysian citizens, but said that distinction applies to policy, not to humanity.  Wong also noted that even within Islamic tradition, the rights of prisoners of war — to food, shelter, and protection from torture — are clearly established, and that refugees deserve no less...   Public sentiment toward Rohingya refugees in Malaysia has reached what human rights groups describe as a historic low — and the government has moved with it.  Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced an agreement with Myanmar’s military-backed administration to deport approximately 5,000 refugees.  The first phase, involving nearly 1,500 individuals, is scheduled to begin on 29 September.  Amnesty International Malaysia and Human Rights Watch have condemned the plan, warning that returning refugees to an active conflict zone puts lives at direct risk...   Critics argue that the Palestinian cause involves state-sponsored occupation and ethnic cleansing, while the Rohingya situation in Malaysia is a question of immigration law and national resources — and that conflating the two is a false equivalence."
"Humanity" is only a thing when you can hate Jews
Even if the Rohingya were trying to destroy Malaysia, just like how Palestinians are trying to annihilate Israel, this wouldn't justify their hypocrisy

Nancy Mace on X - "A 14-year-old girl in Gaza was traded for two bags of flour. Rape victims are being married off to their rapists in Gaza. Where are the feminists? Where are the Democrats who never miss a Gaza protest? Where are the Queers for Palestine?"

Pete North on X - "t bores me (as much as it bores you) to have to write about the Israeli conflict, but I am sick to death of the "Free Palestine" death cult. The reason you can tell Palestine supporters are antisemitic, is because they can muster obscure details about what happened in the region in 1916, 1949 and 1967, but couldn't tell you the first thing about any other regional war or post-imperial injustice - of which there are many. They are simply opposed to Jews having a homeland.   What you also notice is that they tend to be far leftists who don't even believe in borders and dispute anybody's right to a homeland (unless they fit the preferred victim criteria). It enrages them that Arabs were driven out (after the war they started), but don't care if Brits are made a minority in Britain. They are as much anti-civilisation and anti-West as they are anti-Israel.       I'm not interested in protracted debates about how Israel came about. Most of it was decided and pretty much settled before I was even born. What exists now is a functioning first world democratic state. The troubles there now are the same ones that have been bubbling throughout my lifetime, over what should be done about the Arab enclaves.   There are been several opportunities to formalise a state, but each time the hand of compromise has been slapped away by Palestinians, preferring instead to wage a pointless genocidal war of terror on the Jews. Consequently, I have no sympathy for their plight. Gaza could have thrived as a city sate - but they chose death instead.   I sometimes think people don't really know what war is. It's that thing when you set out to destroy your enemies. There are several ways of prosecuting a war, but it's usually inadvisable to start one unless you can win it.   On that basis, you might think Hamas was pretty dumb to provoke one of the most effective armies in the world, but Hamas aren't stupid. They understand that propaganda is also a weapon of war, by which you can leverage the gullibility and idiocy of people against your enemy.   This is quite a costly strategy in that provoking Israel to such an extent was always going to result in a sustained and uncompromising reply. Hamas, of course, knew this but they simply didn't care. They were prepared to sacrifice tens of thousands of their own people, playing the long game, in the somewhat plausible belief that they could turn international opinion against Israel.   That has worked a number of times in several wars, and its part of the reason the West could not sustain wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is different though, because for Israel, it is not a war of choice. It is a fight or die equation where the opinions of others don't come into it.    For a time, though, Israel had reason for concern. International public opinion was turning sour - which is still dangerous for them. But I think that's probably over now because we can see Palestine supporters for who and what they are. Every single one of them has outed themselves as a first order moronic bigot who latches on to every other moronic cause.    We also see, in Britain particularly, supporters of this cause are also people who would do to us what Hamas did to Jews on 7/10 if they could - and have a track record of trying. It's the same people who've been grooming and raping teenage girls across England.   While pro-Palestine demonstrations have been large - often comprised of foreigners and subversives, they are still a minority. Most are just gullible students who will grow out of it eventually when they learn how the real world works. The vast majority of people in the UK don't care all that much. I certainly don't.   What Gazans are living through is exactly what they asked for, and far less than they deserve - especially after cheering on the psychopaths who paraded the corpses of the women they raped. One can only admire Israel's restraint. In the end, the war is one of civilisation versus Stone Age barbarism.
There's a Part 2 to this. Nobody who utters the words "Free Palestine" ever bothers to articulate what that actually means. To Islamists, that means a "Palestine" free of Jews, while to the average pro-pal activists, they don't have any concept of what it means because they've never looked at a map or given it a nanosecond's thought.  More sophisticated advocates for "Palestine" might suggest that it consists of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and that it requires the removal of all Jewish settlements in the region. Sounds very reasonable doesn't it?   That, though, has been offered to Palestinians several times. But such a peace would be disastrous to the Islamists. It would mean no international refugee status, no more aid funds to divert into Cayman Islands accounts, and would means doing the hard work of governing and peacebuilding instead of letting NGOs do all the work. They would have to do as the Jews did and build a country. More to the point, it would mean giving up on their religious imperative to kill all Jews.   If you bribed them with enough money, they might agree to this (which was actually tried) but soon after you get another Islamist group sponsored by outside Islamic influences to keep the grift going. Immediately afterwards, the terrorist attacks start up again, and Israel again has to close its borders and retaliate when it gets serious. Soon after, we are back here again.   In this universe, though, the West Bank becomes an existential military threat to Israel, - as a staging area for an invasion that could cut Israel in half. There is only one way Israel could agree to this and that is to ensure such a state is a protectorate that is never allowed conventional weapons of any kind. But even then, as we've seen with the Houthis, they can do an awful lot with unconventional weapons such as drones and Toyota pickups.   Before long Iran, Turkey, or one of the Arab petro-states would be funnelling weapons into the province for their own geopolitical ends. Setting yourself up in the Arab world as the enemy of the Jews is pivotal to maintaining your grip on power. Israel would have to pre-emptively invade, and then it's back to how it is now.   Not in a billion years can Israel allow such a strategic vulnerability to develop on its very doorstep. There is no scenario where giving Palestinians a state results in peaceful coexistence - and since this is an existential matter for the Jewish people, they are right to ignore their critics."

Anthony Rispo | Facebook - "The problem with this “Free Palestine” cult is very simple, but it’s also very complicated. They view what Israel has done to defend itself from a death cult as a “genocide.” But they fail to acknowledge that “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” is a call to annihilate the state of Israel. Like, an actual genocide.  To disentangle the reasons why these brainwashed, morally inverted idiots believe this requires one to enter a psychotic house of mirrors of conspiracy theories about the Jews as colonizers, and it’s exhausting.  These people are exhausting. They think they’re so virtuous, and they’re not. They don’t even know what they’re talking about.  I’m so over them."

Andy Ujku-Dardania | Facebook - "One of the most infuriating sense of entitlement in a movie I have ever watched was from The Hamburg Cell (2004).  It’s towards the beginning when 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah arrives in Germany from Lebanon and is not particularly religious at that point. He’s hadn’t fallen in with the jihadist crowd yet.  He’s at a mosque with other Muslims and they’re all introducing each other and where they’re from. Ziad says he’s from Lebanon and almost immediately he incurs the wrath of a Palestinian man there who castigates the Lebanese for abandoning Palestine.  The exchange devolves into a shouting match between the two as Ziad angrily asks; “What do you want me to do? You want me to blow myself up”?  And the Palestinian guy incredulously says; “Yes, you should blow yourself up!” The fight is broken up by the other mosque attendees and that’s the end of it. But my God the sense of entitlement on that guy.  You want a total stranger who’s not even from your country to become a suicide bomber because you’re too chickenshit to do it yourself?  I find this level of entitlement to be a central feature of people from the global south. They think because you’re better off, you owe it to them…up to and including your life. It’s a very selfish and self-serving mindset."

Alan Shatter on X - "The Spanish government denied overflight permission to the plane flying Israeli rescuers to Columbia to provide humanitarian help and rescue services after the recent earthquake. Following their arrival they rescued from the rubble of a building a 3 year old girl buried for 5 days. The scandal ridden, incompetent Spanish socialist government, Ireland’s primary EU ally in demonising Israel,  deserves no credibility when it pretends dedication to human rights."

Thread by @mishtal on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "BREAKING: Mohsen Mahdawi has been presented to America as a peace activst.  We uncovered 15 years of previously unseen evidence - and it tells a very different story.  Today we publish our report. This is just some of what we found.  Thread ⬇️ ⬇️⬇️
Along with @raychfeldman, I went digging through years of archive material and social media posts.  Let us start long before he came to the U.S.  It is 2010 - his patience is wearing thin - and he promises that "soon, very soon, we will annihilate the Jews"There are plenty of posts from this period that glorify violence - but this footage from 2013 is still exceptional.  In a TV interview, Mahdawi suggests that if Palestinians “think a little”, they will see they have “the capacity and conviction to resist, to kill and to wound.”
An image of its time. Posted by his cousin to Mahdawi's timeline, with Mahdawi tagged in the image. A blurry photograph of a man holding a Kalashnikov who looks remarkably like Mahdawi.  Can we be 100% certain it is him? No. But take a look.
Mahdawi is now on U.S soil, but that does not stop him. Mahdawi explicitly praises the armed wings of Hamas and Islamic Jihad - calling them lions and describing those pursuing resistance abroad as “mere dwarves.”Mahdawi tells the story of an uncle who inspired him toward education. But before that story appeared for a U.S. audience, Mahdawi described him differently in Arabic - as the man who taught him nationalism, to arm himself with "faith as with a rifle”, and “the first bullets.”The glorification of terrorists continued. In 2018, Mahdawi cursed and threatened Palestinian security forces. Their offence? Helping Israel capture a Hamas terrorist who had murdered a rabbi.  Mahdawi branded them “traitors.”Throughout this period, Mahdawi continued to praise numerous terrorists who were killed.  In 2021 he honours Fadi Washaha - a terrorist with a long history of armed violence involving guns, grenades and attacks at “zero distance.”  Mahdawi called him his “brother in struggle.”Mahdawi founded and led the Columbia University protests, standing alongside those calling for an intifada. He even spoke alongside Nerdeen Kiswani at a Within Our Lifetime event.  Here he speaks to the crowd directly in front of a banner declaring “BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.”Mahdawi claims he stepped back from the movement - but his social media posts in October 2024 were still offering full support for the Columbia protests. He also says he withdrew before the encampment. But here he is inside it.
It gets worse. December 2024 - a decade after Mahdawi moved to America.  HHe posts a video in Arabic and describes “armed resistance in the West Bank or Gaza” alongside the overseas “popular resistance” that “we began and are still engaged in.”  His words below ⬇️⬇️
Even after the arrest it continued. 2026: Mahdawi had left a Facebook group he created that glorified Palestinian terrorists. In 2026, he chose to rejoin it - reassociating himself with the group and becoming an administrator once again.
Then there is Mahdawi's family. He posted on instagram about how their lives were "stolen" - but when we traced them - we found the image was very different. Each of them were tied to armed resistance.
Finally, the story at the heart of Mahdawi’s transformation. He says his best friend was shot dead in front of him as a child - and he held his blood-soaked body - and his uncle then spoke by his graveside. Our investigation shows chronology makes his account impossible. This is only some of what we found - there is far too much to document in a thread.  The full investigation, with the evidence and sources, is in our report.  Read the introductory article and download the report here: ⬇️"

Yehuda Teitelbaum on X - "Hi @jstreetdotorg, Any regrets about supporting a college student who posted "For soon, very soon, we shall annihilate the Jews."?"
Yehuda Teitelbaum on X - "Hey @bradlander, remember your friend Mohsen Mahdawi, who you called a “powerful example” of compassion and peacemaking? Here’s Mahdawi promising that “soon, very soon, we will annihilate the Jews.” Still honored to call him a friend, Brad?"

Open on X (Translated) - "Festival of Open 2026, Albanese: "I agree with those who think we need to stop sending weapons to Kiev" - The video"
Nathan Ruser on X - "In a surprise to no-one who's paid passing attention to Francesca Albanese through her many years of supporting and spreading Assad's propaganda, she has plenty of deeply idiotic takes that support murderous dictators. Here's another for the pile.   Her support of Palestine is perhaps the only group of deeply oppressed people where I haven't seen her side with the oppressors. Certainly not the rule."
Kevin Yam 任建峰 on X - "Even in the case of Palestine, Francesca Albanese’s position is consistent with her other pro-murderous dictator views insofar as it’s never really about human rights and always actually about being reflexively anti-Western.  There’s a Chinese saying translating roughly as “A long road reveals a horse’s power, a long time reveals a person’s heart” (路遙知馬力、日久見人心) - this is so true of Francesca Albanese."
Left wingers just hate the West