Links - 29th August 2026 (1 - Zohran Mamdani)

Exclusive | Mamdani blocked from speaking at fallen NYC soldier's funeral - "Mayor Zohran Mamdani was snubbed from eulogizing Army Sgt. Angel Sarah Rampersad at the fallen soldier’s Queens funeral Friday — and the embarrassing scene unfolded in real time as he fumed while waiting in vain to give his speech, sources revealed.  Mamdani, who was relegated to the fourth row in the Ozone Park church, appeared to be reviewing his planned remarks on an iPad while Gov. Kathy Hochul and other dignitaries, including Queens Borough President Donovan Richards, were called to speak, a source in attendance said...   The diss came as Mamdani — an avowed democratic socialist who’s harshly critical of Israel and the US war against Iran — remains a divisive political figure both within New York City and across the nation.  Another source involved with the funeral’s planning said Rampersad’s family is pro-President Trump and didn’t want Mamdani to speak.  Yet another insider confirmed that Mamdani’s outspoken lefty politics ultimately led him to lose his customary mayoral role as a speaker during a hometown soldier’s funeral.  “The family is more conservative and wanted to limit any political distractions,” the insider said.  Rampersad, 28, was among three US soldiers killed July 17 during an Iranian missile attack on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. Rampersad grew up in an Ozone Park family, graduated from John Jay College of Criminal Justice and joined the Army, following in the footsteps of her uncle.  It’s unclear whether the young mayor visited Rampersad’s kin in the days following her death as is customary for Big Apple leaders to do. Nothing about a visit prior to Friday’s funeral appeared on his official public schedule or his indefatigable social media accounts...   In lieu of actually speaking at Rampersad’s funeral, Mamdani’s press team blasted out his planned speech, identifying it as “remarks as prepared.”...   Mamdani, whose less-than-prime seat was near first-term City Councilman Frank Morano (R-Staten Island), fumed in silence after his snub became apparent. “I was surprised the mayor didn’t speak,” said Morano, who is far from a Mamdani ally. “I didn’t understand why they would have lower-level officials speak and not the mayor.”"

Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani on X - "Too many lives have been cut short by high-speed, illegal e-bikes and e-scooters.  That’s why we are issuing cease-and-desist orders against 42 online retailers that have been selling these dangerous devices to New York City residents — including Target, Temu, Wayfair, Walmart, and Amazon.   The safety of New Yorkers is not for sale."
Inez Stepman ⚪️🔴⚪️ on X - "This is so funny. The previous administration fined the RIDERS to deal with this problem. But that would be a big no-no for Mamdani because they are mostly immigrants from places with totally different rules of the road. So instead, he tries to sue the companies that make the bikes. LOL."
Gallowglass on X - "NYC passes a law. The NYPD enforces it. Illegal e-bike crashes decrease. A report finds enforcement disproportionately impacts people of color. The conversation shifts from the illegal conduct, to accusations of racism against the NYPD. Enforcement gets dialed back. Rinse. Repeat"
Ian Chernencoff on X - "New York should surrender all freedoms for safety, only then will you defeat fascism"
L Corinthe on X - "if cars were being driven illegally we’d go after the dealerships? how about penalizing the perps? oh, never mind, that wouldn’t be blaming the man"
Brian Helt on X - "This is the conclusion to draw if you view people as a collective, not as individuals with agency."
TNT on X - "Too many lives cut short by high-speed e-bikes… so naturally we’re going after Target and Amazon instead of the people actually riding them at 40 mph through red lights. Bold strategy."
Mehek Cooke🇺🇸 on X - "Government should enforce laws, not invent them by press conference. If these e-bikes violate the law, prove it in court. If they don’t, threatening retailers is government overreach. The rule of law should never depend on politics."
Mountain Guy on X - "Glad to hear you can still get stabbed, beaten, perhaps lit on fire on NYC’s subways…"
Lou Perez on X - "So, like, what are you going to do with the guys currently riding illegal e-bikes and e-scooters?"
Robby on X - "You know who else cuts too many lives short? Degenerate criminals that you visit in jail and always side with over grieving families"
Popdworks on X - "There is no such thing as an illegal e-bike just an undocumented one you fucking racist"
Gustav De la Mer on X - "Interesting move considering there is zero enforcement of existing laws in Central Park or other areas where these illegal e-bikes are a menace. The most obvious explanation is that the mayor fears the optics of enforcing the rules because of the demographics of who the violators are. At every possible turn, Mamdani wants to reject personal responsibility/accountability and punish business/success."
One left wing cope is that if you don't live in New York City, you have no right to complain about Zohran Mamdani. Empathy is only good when it pushes the left wing agenda. Not to mention how left wingers from across the US (and abroad too) always weigh in whenever they're told to be upset over something. How many people bitching about Renee Good live in Minneapolis?

Stu Smith on X - "🚨 Meet the Rent Abolitionist the Mamdani Administration Glorified Today
 This is Tracy Rosenthal, whom the Mamdani administration chose to elevate today in its new mini-documentary on the Union of Pinnacle Tenants.  Rosenthal co-wrote Abolish Rent, calls for a “permanent and general rent strike,” describes rent as a “monthly tribute,” and says tenants pay it “at the barrel of a gun.” She also promotes “reputational damage” and confronting landlords at their homes, tactics that can cross the line from protest into harassment, coercion, intimidation, or trespass.  Her co-author Leonardo Vilchis describes organizers breaking padlocks, retrieving tenants’ belongings from a garage and the trash, and putting them back inside an apartment. He then calls for taking control of “territory” and building the “defenses” and “mechanisms” needed because “the state is gonna come after us.”  Abusive landlords, unsafe buildings, and dysfunctional housing courts are real problems. But these organizers do not simply want to solve them. They exploit every failure, inflame every dispute, and pour gasoline on the fire to advance a far more radical project.  Their stated objective is not better enforcement or stronger tenant protections. It is abolishing rent, creating a “new form of collective ownership,” constructing territory, and preparing to resist the state.  I literally published an article yesterday warning that Tracy Rosenthal seemed awfully close to the Mamdani administration. I have whiplash from being right this quickly."
Justine Bateman on X - ""Rent itself, this power relationship, this monthly tribute, that we have to fork over, to people already richer than us, to pay for our human need for a home— That itself is the crisis.”  (No one forces people to rent apartments in expensive cities like NY.) She then says the solutions are “reputational damage” to the landlord, “organizing tenants” to withhold rent. (The tired threat of destroying others’ lives because you can’t have what you want.) That real estate investments = “a hoard of wealth.”  (As if the buildings themselves are hogging all the cash out there.) Another guy, “We need to take over territory… We have to fund organizations that make that possible… First, we need to get rid of common sense and listen to the troubles where they are happening.”  (So, theft, the financing of theft, and turning away from any common sense.) The woman than says, “At the point when you’re so vulnerable… Because you have stopped paying rent, this monthly ritual, this ‘contract’ you’re supposed to turn over…. They’re recognizing their right to their homes.” (Trying to convince people that breaking the law is their right.)
Bottomline: "You have something I want, so I'm going to try to steal it." Not trying to find ways to usher in affordable housing, or to help people to get housing and employment in more affordable locations in the US, just out-of-control toddler behavior."

Fact Check: NYC's subsidized grocery stores will not require ID to shop - "A New York City program to provide low-cost groceries will use a loyalty- or membership-style card to manage inventory and prevent abuse... interim NYCEDC President Jeanny Pak... said there will be measures in place to prevent misuse. “We are looking to make sure that we target New Yorkers, whether it be at sort of a library card-esque thing, and also we manage who’s buying,” she said."
Of course, if you aren't who your loyalty/membership card says you are, you will presumably be kicked out. Therefore conservatives are spreading misinformation and slandering Zohran Mamdani

Nick Plumb on X - "Mamdani wants to protect tax payer funded grocery store from non-NYC residents… they’ll need an ID card to enter. You can make this up."
Paul Zeise on X - "Apparently asking for ID to get into the mayor’s grocery store is not racist, exclusionary and/or disenfranchising but asking for an ID to vote is. Do these people ever even listen to how stupid and hypocritical they sound?"
One cope is that voting is a constitutional right. But this has nothing to do with how left wingers think that minorities and poor people are too stupid to get ID. And anyway, even if it's not a constitutional right, it doesn't look good to ban poor people and minorities from one of the most popular bits of your platform

Meme - Stewie Griffin: "heh, Mamdani says you'll need to show identification for his grocery stores"
Brian Griffith (Democratic party): "Well yeah, it's to keep nonresidents from coming in and using up the resources"
Stewie Griffin:

Mark Penn on X - "Welcome to Socialism
Mayor Mamdani with fanfare released a list of 960,000 owners of real estate in New York City that have been determined they could owe the pied a terre tax because NYC computers have determined they own what was billed as a market value of $5 million or more.  Now there are only about 1 million residential tax lots in New York City so the first question is how did virtually every owner get put on the list?  The answer is that you are subject to the tax in the first two years if your property has a “DOF valuation” of over $1 million. And so the $5 million figure was a fake. The DOF system is obviously massively flawed as it has dragged in almost a million property owners that meet the threshold.   Now, here is the interesting part — once you are on the list you have to prove you should not be taxed by showing you are a resident. Or by challenging the valuation. Good luck fighting the city bureaucrats on both of these counts. The individual litigation will be massive.   It does not take more than a New York minute and Google Maps to see that many of these properties would never sell for $5 million. Pick a few.  The whole housing sector will also be dragged down by the additional annual taxation. Add a tax of 4 to 6 per cent (yes condos are taxed that high now) a year of its DOF value to a condo or coop and that condo won’t be worth that much. And you can forget about out of town buyers. So this will destroy much of the home values that people have built up. People who have invested in New York.  Many of these folks might have a mortgage and may in fact not have they much equity in the property. The tax-the-rich taxman does not care about that. An unexpected $50,000 annual bill for a condo with a DOF value of a million now has the cost of a second mortgage on top of all the expenses.   The idea of the tax was basically to create massive taxation without representation. The people being taxed — non residents — by definition don’t vote and so the political genius was to create and discriminate against a class of people who do not vote. That by itself might be unconstitutional. And they also don’t use the schools, much garbage, much of any of the city’s services. So taxing them actually makes little sense as you drive away people who were contributing but not using the services.   Now many will recall that persecutions frequently begin with a list — a list that can be used by the authorities and that is where Mamdani started — and he published it to boot. And smiled about it as though those high-value owners deserve what’s coming to them.   But with a million people on his tax hit list, welcome to the lie of socialism - it starts with the idea that only “they” are going to get it — a small group of 30,000 homeowners — and before you know it you are on the list."

Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani on X - "If you have a second home in New York City worth more than $5M, check your mailbox when you’re back in the five boroughs — because you've got mail. Today, we sent notification letters to property owners, letting them know that our new pied-à-terre tax is coming soon. The best city in the world deserves the best parks, libraries, and schools in the world. That's only possible when we all pay our fair share."
Thread by @billybinion on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "People can & should debate tax policy. But the way Mamdani talks about the wealthy—who disproportionately fund the city's tax base—as if they are the scum on the bottom of his shoe is a terrible quality in a leader. It's childish and weak.  This trend obviously isn't limited to Mamdani. A bunch of lawmakers talk about rich people as if they're parasites. Which is deeply ironic when considering how much they pay in taxes, how much they donate, and how they've created things that have vastly improved people's lives. I'm once again banging on this sign. Ken Griffin—the billionaire whom Mamdani shamed in that creepy video—pays a ton of tax revenue to NY & is reportedly scaling back in the city now. You can talk about taxing your constituents without spitting on them."
The cruelty is the point

Maud Maron on X - "A favorite pearl-clutching reason offered to oppose voter ID is that married woman who changed their name might face a bureaucratic hurdle in updating their ID. But imposing the huge hurdle of “prove your home is not a pied-a-terre or face crippling taxes” is just fine…"
TheRationalMan on X - "Well the "rich" people who own 5 million second homes, oops that's 1 million dollar possibly primary residences, are white and literate, so it is easy for them to get up to date ID's."
Left wingers just hate the 'rich'

New York Post on X - "Mamdani publishes names and addresses of all NYC property owners who could be hit with new pied-à-terre tax. Read today's cover here:"
Spencer Pratt on X - "This is what commies do. They mark their enemies, call them “fascists”, and that’s the bat signal: they know their deranged commie street animals will Luigi them. They never have to explicitly call for violence…violence is just the inherent reflex of the commie. Message received"
Privacy is only important when it pushes the left wing agenda

Clay Travis on X - "A health care CEO was assassinated on a Manhattan street. Publishing the names and addresses of people who own second homes in New York City is beyond reckless. Frankly, it’s indefensible and could act as an assassin’s target list."

Mamdani’s Antisemitic Smoke Signals - WSJ - "families of 9/11 victims have a message of their own for the mayor ahead of the coming 25th anniversary commemoration: They don’t want him there... his is one tricky problem for Mr. Mamdani. If he shows up on Sept. 11, he’s likely to get hooted at by lifelong New Yorkers with an actual historical claim to victimhood (as opposed to the recent arrivals who consider a delivery truck blocking a bike lane a human-rights violation). If he doesn’t show, he’ll be lambasted for his cowardice. It’s a toughie. Heavy hangs the head.  Don’t waste your sympathy on Mr. Mamdani. He made this particular political bed. Chickens need somewhere to roost."
Exclusive | Families of 9/11 want to ban Mamdani from 25th anniversary - "“Our objection is based on his public record — his failure to meaningfully acknowledge the horror of that day, and his employment of, support for, or association with individuals who have minimized 9/11, defended terrorists, or even suggested America ‘deserved’ the attacks,” said Giovanni Galante – whose 29-year-old wife Grace Catherine Galante was among 2,977 innocents killed by al-Qaeda terrorists.  Galante, 55, is one of the organizers of a petition drive that has collected more than 42,000 signatures so far. It is circulating widely among 9/11 families and Galante estimated that between 3,000 and 7,500 of the signers are relatives of victims...   The petition posted on Change.org cites an array of concerns about Mamdani, who is the city’s first Muslim mayor and has promoted his religion since taking office in January. They include:
Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the “globalize the intifada” rallying cry for violence against Jewish people.
His palling around on the mayoral campaign last year with Imam Siraj Wahhaj, a notorious, gay-hating Brooklyn imam who once urged followers to participate in gun-free jihad and “march through the city of New York.” Wahhaj was an unindicted co-conspirator in 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
His appointment of Ramzi Kassem as the city’s chief counsel. Kassem has defended Ahmed al-Darbi — an al-Qaeda terrorist who pleaded guilty in a 2002 plot to bomb a French oil tanker – and Mahmoud Khalil, the radical lead organizer of the 2024 anti-Israel tentifada at Columbia University.
The mayor’s endorsement of fellow Democratic Socialist of America member Aber Kawas for a state Senate seat — despite her once describing 9/11 as a terror attack that “a couple of people did” and expressing sympathy for Ahmed Ferhani, who pleaded guilty in 2012 to plotting to blow up a Manhattan synagogue.
Hizzoner’s endorsement of Darializa Avila Chevalier for Congress. Mamdani has called the DSA insurgent the “perfect candidate” despite her radical past, which includes once calling the U.S. “a f—ing disgrace” and boasting she desecrated the American flag by using it like a napkin to wipe her filthy hands.
Mamdani defending al-Qaeda fiend Anwar al-Awlaki — and blaming America for turning the prostitution-loving cleric into a terrorist, according to some of his 2015 social media posts that resurfaced last year. Al-Awlaki became a prominent imam at mosques in San Diego and Virginia, eventually interacting with three of the heinous 9/11 hijackers there, U.S. officials have said.
Mamdani’s dad, Mahmood Mamdani, a chaired professor of African history and colonialism at Columbia University, has expressed sympathy for suicide bombers...
 Organizer Cheri Sparacio, whose 35-year-old husband Thomas was killed on 9/11, quipped there are  “so many other examples” why it would be “disrespectful” for Mamdani to attend the ceremony that “we couldn’t fit them on the list.”   They include Mamdani’s longtime association with vile left-wing influencer Hasan Piker, who once said “America deserved” the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, and Mamdani’s outlandish claim that he and other fellow Muslims were also victims of 9/11 because it supposedly triggered a horrible wave of “Islamophobia,” added Sparacio, of Staten Island...   “I don’t want families to feel uncomfortable,” said Iken-Murphy, also a founding trustee on the 9/11 Memorial & Museum’s board. “Others can come a different day, but let the families have their time.”"
Time to call them Islamophobic, because in Western culture, the ultimate sin is to be racist

Yehuda Teitelbaum on X - "Mamdani is taking heat after appointing an 18 member judicial advisory committee that doesn't include a single Jewish member, despite New York City's massive Jewish population and enormous number of Jewish lawyers and judges.  One of the people rejected was retired Appellate Division Justice John Leventhal, who had already served on the committee under Eric Adams.  The excuse given by the Mamdani Administration is that Leventhal represented Ghislaine Maxwell on appeal.  Keep in mind that Mamdani's own Chief Counsel, Ramzi Kassem, who plays a central role in the judicial selection process, built his career representing terrorism suspects, including an admitted(!) Al Qaeda terrorist.  There is an entire ideological worldview that treats justice differently depending on who the defendant is.  Representing a white woman accused of horrific crimes is disqualifying.  Representing an Al Qaeda terrorist is celebrated as principled advocacy, or at the very least held up as an example of how our justice system is supposed to work.  It's the same worldview that sends politicians to Rikers to lecture about an allegedly oppressive justice system that discriminates against minorities, while threatening to arrest the democratically elected leader of Israel based on a warrant that the United States doesn't even recognize.  Lots more to say on this. Should I write a full article?"
I got accused of being a Zionist for pointing out that his excuse was lame and conservatively calculating the probability that 18 lawyers in NYC wouldn't contain a single Jew. Good reminder that anti-Zionism is just anti-Semitism

Councilwoman Inna Vernikov on X - " Mamdani has trouble appointing judge Leventhal bec. he “was part of a legal team for Ghislane Maxwell,” but no problem with al-Qaeda lawyer Ramzi Kassem as his chief counsel! Not a single Jewish lawyer made it to his sham judicial commitee, while approx 35% of NYC’s lawyers are Jewish. Don’t tell me that is not blatant antisemitism!"

Saul Sadka on X - "Don’t be surprised that Mamdani—a man for whom a Judenrein Middle East is his political lodestar—also wants a Judenrein NYC. About 45% of NYC lawyers are Jewish. The odds of selecting 18 NYC lawyers at random and ending up with a panel containing no Jews are 0.55 to the 18th power—or roughly one chance in 47,149.  And it’s not about “Zionism.” There are plenty of anti-Zionist Jewish lawyers he could have picked, including thousands who, to their shame, voted for him. It’s about Jews. He hates Jews. It's not complex."

Glenn Greenwald on X - "I presume the people who have spent years denouncing the evils of racial and other demographic quotas will be defending Zohran Mamdani here, right? Or is this the one group entitled to "representation"? @BenShapiro, for instance, really hates quotes like this:"
Left wingers don't understand probability. If "minority" representation falls marginally short of population statistics, that's proof of discrimination. But if a group is totally unrepresented in a way that's practically statistically impossible, that doesn't prove anything
Clearly Greenwald only hates "Zionists"330a href="https://x.com/ighaworth/status/2054560759250633166">Ian Haworth on X - "I went to a steakhouse but couldn’t afford to pay the bill, so I pressured everyone else in the restaurant to pay it for me. Then, I went on social media and boasted that I’d paid the tab. That’s what Zohran Mamdani is doing with his “I balanced the budget!” routine."

Yehuda Teitelbaum on X - "Zohran Mamdani just appointed Madeline Fox to the panel overseeing New York City’s public schools.  In 2025, Fox signed a letter denying there was a “rampant crisis of antisemitism” on college campuses and accusing Congress of weaponizing Jew hatred to launch a “far right authoritarian attack” on higher education.  Her academic work is exactly what you would expect.  One of her latest papers opens by declaring that we are living under “fascist tyranny” and describes academia as a space for “community liberation,” “freedom dreams,” and “radical resistance.”  Other publications include “Music of the Oppressed,” “Contesting Privilege,” and “Awakening Injustice.”  Mamdani keeps appointing people who treat Jew-hatred as a political inconvenience invented by Jews and Republicans.  Then, when Jews are attacked, his office issues another solemn statement pretending nobody could have seen it coming.  She will now help govern the education of nearly one million New York City children.  Are New York parents okay with this?"

SaltyGoat on X - "Mamdani just sent 4 socialists to the general election for Congress and NY Senate. One wiped her hand on the American flag One said 9/11 was America s fault. This is today's Democrat party I hope you can see it for what it is"

Links - 28th August 2026 (2 - Canadian Politics [including Wildfires])

Roman Baber on X - "More CO2 was released from these forest fires than reduced by all of the Liberal green scams combined. Northern Ontario is burning but @MarkJCarney will lend $125M for climate change initiatives in Brazil!"

Mario Zelaya on X - "Not parody Carney cut HALF OF THE STAFF at the federal wildfire coordination centre, DURING ONE OF THE WORST WILDFIRE SEASONS IN CANADIAN HISTORY. We’re cooked."
Time to blame Doug Ford and/or Stephen Harper. Or even Brian Mulroney

Chris Martz | Facebook - "We are being told that the wildfires in Ontario are being driven / fueled by climate change. Specifically, more extreme heat and increased drought. So, unlike the journalists and most meteorologists regurgitating these talking points, I looked at the actual data since 1910. The average number of heatwave days (HWDs) in Canada (which are defined as ≥3 consecutive days with Tmax ≥90th percentile against the 1991–2020 mean per station) was 8.58% lower during the 60-year period 1965–2025 compared to 1911–1960, but the linear trend is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The last eight years have exhibited an unusually high number of HWDs, but it's far too early to tell if that's a sign of things to come or simply an artifact of natural variability. I used 113 long-term (≥80 years of daily data) GHCNd stations to complete this analysis. The only way one can get a meaningful increase in HWDs is to cherry-pick the x-axis starting date and ignoring pre-1960 data. Looking at droughts, I examined the self-calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index (scPDSI) from CRU (data is available through 2024). I then calibrated that to the Drought Monitor over the same period that I analyzed HWDs. There isn't much of a trend there; in fact there is a significant decrease in the worst of the drought categories despite the spike in 2023–24. Very few people these days in this line of work build datasets from scratch. But I do it because if someone makes a claim, it's very easy to test said claims against observational data. In most cases, alarmist narratives crumble with scrutiny. While alarmists get the basics right about the physics of Global Warming Theory in an “all else being equal” hypothetical, the real-world is a far more complex and details are hairy."

Meme - Chris Martz: "Here's a map you probably haven't seen. The Canadian provincial and territorial "all-time" high temperature records. Eight of the thirteen provinces / territories recorded their high temperature records before 1940. All but three were set over 35 years ago."
"Canada "All-Time" Provincial & Territorial High Temperature Records"

Dante Rossi on X - "Trudeau promised in 2021 that $450 million would deliver new water bombers to provinces before the next fire season. Under Mark Carney’s Liberals, five years later, zero have been built or delivered federally. Canadians facing record wildfires deserve real equipment, not endless delays, excuses, and broken promises."

Steve Milloy on X - "Green Hell: For decades, greens have fought against building roads in wilderness areas. Not only does that make is forest management impossible, but wildfires can't be put out because no one can get there."
TurboWolf🚀🐺 on X - "Even if there are roads, our stupid government disallows machinery to travel on them in a firefighting effort because of the government's "no machines allowed in wilderness areas!" rule.🙄 My cousin is a heavy equipment operator & has experienced this first-hand."

Tim Sheehy on X - "As a former waterbomber pilot who used to lead an aerial firefighting fleet, I can tell you “send help” is an extremely dishonest framing by the Canadian government. The Canadian government routinely blocks U.S. firefighting companies from attacking fires in Canada, while aggressively sending their government-subsidized aircraft to the U.S. to earn commercial rates from the U.S. taxpayer. It’s big business for them and they run it like a Chinese protectionist racket."

Zen✨WECK on X - "Spraying glyphosate over Ontario’s boreal forest to kill fire-resistant deciduous trees (aspen, birch, fireweed) and create flammable conifer monocultures was always risky.
Timeline: Glyphosate commercialized 1974, Canadian ag use 1976, forestry adoption ramped up late 1970s–1980s with widespread aerial spraying. Ontario continues spraying tens of thousands of hectares yearly; Quebec banned it on Crown land in 2001. Wildfires have always been part of the boreal, but data shows increasing trends in area burned and large fire sizes since the 1980s onward, accelerating with climate-driven fire weather. Northern Ontario’s current blazes (100+ active, evacuations) are sending smoke over cottage country. These conifer monocultures look orderly but are an ecological disaster waiting to happen. Conifers are vulnerable to pests, less hospitable to wildlife, and more flammable. Glyphosate kills moisture-retaining native plants, leaving drier landscapes that are practically begging for a spark. Studies near Thunder Bay show moose populations dropping from lost food sources. Traces contaminate berries and medicinal plants used by First Nations.  Spraying to “protect” timber yields turns forests into tinderboxes. IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Aerosol drift from aerial apps raises inhalation and downwind exposure risks. Fires are natural + climate-amplified, but management choices (monocultures over diverse, resilient mosaics) matter. Time to rethink before more smoky summers. What say you, Ontario?"
Damn climate change!

Rabbi Poupko on X - "This is the Canadair CL-415 Waterbomber. It costs about $80–85 million per aircraft. Ontario has only 9 of these aircraft. In the past year, Canada sent over $500 million dollars to Palestinian causes. What would happen if Canada spent that money on more firefighting airplanes like this? How many more airplanes like this could it buy with a half a billion dollars? Photo: MORH/ T. Brandt

Meme - "The climate FRAUD:
1. In the worst years, Canadian wildfires emit ~700 Mt of CO2, equal to man-made emissions.
2. Canada collects billions annually in carbon and climate- related charges - near $10B.
3. A $5-10B/year investment in forest management could greatly reduce catastrophic wildfires."

wealthmoose on X - "26 billion dollars for Ukraine 🇺🇦 Word salad for Northern Ontario 👇"
John Lee Pettimore on X - "Canada is the only G7 country (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States) without a dedicated national wildfire response agency or equivalent centralized federal body for wildfire management and response."
Damn climate change and Doug Ford!

Ciprian Ivanof on X - "Controlled burns for forest management have become a partisan issue.  I don't understand why.  The Right supports controlled burns to reduce maximum fire risk. The Left opposes it or puts so many barriers to it that predictable small fires become devastating in short order.  Can someone tell me why there is this weird partisan divide in forest management?"
Besides their inability to think ahead and consider counterfactuals, as well as their love of what sounds/looks good rather than what works, left wingers need to manufacture crises to blame climate change

Society Unveiled on X - "Let me get this straight. If a gymgoer feels intimidated by a bladed weapon, it's an irrational fear. But under Bill C-9, if somebody feels intimidated by my political beliefs, I can go to prison for 10 years? Canada is beyond broken."

Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 on X - "‼️BREAKING Only 5 days after C-9 became law, the Police have pulled over the Rebel News' billboard truck to investigate a "hate crime". No enforcement action was taken, as of yet. The truck was displaying ads calling for fairness in Women's sports."

Meme - Ontario Proud: "Many people are blaming the wildfires in Ontario on Doug Ford supposedly cutting funding for forest firefighting. The truth is that the budget is MORE THAN DOUBLE what it was when Kathleen Wynne was in office. The truth matters."
"Ontario base funding for forest firefighting, by year:
2018-2019 - $70 million
2020-2022 - $100 million
2023-2025 - $135 million
2026 - $150 million
SOURCE: Ontario Budget"
Left wingers just blame Doug Ford for all of Ontario's problems, and in general left wingers always blame "underfunding". Facts don't matter.

Letting BC charge pipeline toll sets bad provincial precedent: critics | National Post - "The federal government’s decision to allow British Columbia to collect royalties from a proposed new pipeline to the West Coast sets a dangerous precedent for internal Canadian trade by allowing one province to charge a toll for the transportation of goods from another province, analysts warn.  Allowing B.C. to charge a pipeline operator for passing through its province, they say, could establish a new framework where provinces could also start charging each other for other types of commercial traffic, perhaps including even transport trucks or rail cars that travel through another province on their way to other markets. “It’s such a bad precedent,” said Jack Mintz, an economist and the President’s Fellow of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. “It has no logic to it, outside of being extortion.” Ottawa last week announced the Canada-British Columbia Cooperative Prosperity Agreement that states that the province will “share meaningfully” in the economic benefits if a newly proposed pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast is built. In addition to the province receiving federal support for a number of infrastructure projects and compensation for assessed environmental risks associated with the pipeline, it also stands to get an undetermined annual royalty payment from the pipeline.  In exchange, British Columbia Premier David Eby said his NDP government would not oppose the pipeline. Under his predecessor, John Horgan, the NDP government had tried to fight the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline almost a decade ago. But interprovincial pipelines are a federal responsibility, and Horgan was ultimately unable to override the federal government’s constitutional authority, even though B.C. did win financial compensation from the Trans Mountain Expansion in 2017 before it was purchased by the federal government.  The difference between that deal nine years ago and the agreement announced earlier this month is that the previous deal called for B.C. to receive “an environmental and social licence fee” from what was then a private company for a period of 20 years; it did not offer royalty payments for Alberta energy simply travelling through B.C., said Ian Lee, a professor at Carleton University in Ottawa who specializes in trade. Lee and other trade watchers said this new deal could become a greater barrier for interprovincial commerce than the existing provincial barriers that are usually designed to shelter local or provincial business from competition. In this case, Lee added, the goods are effectively being taxed for just travelling through B.C., and not even being sold there.  “This is interprovincial trade barriers on steroids.”  Critics say the fact that the new deal will compensate B.C. is a big problem because it may tempt other provinces to try to profit from the transportation of goods across their jurisdictions. That temptation will grow in the coming years, Lee said, as provincial finances worsen. The Canada-B.C. deal also sets a precedent for provinces and even smaller jurisdictions to engage in more parochial behaviour at a time when the country is under threat from the United States and separatists in Alberta and Quebec, said Heather Exner-Pirot, director of natural resources, energy and the environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think tank.  Other provinces are going to see this Canada-B.C. deal and insist on their own “pound of flesh” any time the federal government wants to advance a project that is in the national interest, or perhaps for commercial traffic, she said.  “We are on a slippery slope,” she said. “This B.C. deal slipped us a bit more.”  The deal also comes at a time when the federal government has called to reduce or even eliminate interprovincial trade barriers, with mixed co-operation from the provinces. Economists say those barriers, which raise prices on a wide range of goods and services and make it more difficult for businesses to grow, cost the Canadian economy dearly, perhaps as much as five per cent of its annual gross domestic product.  Mintz called the proposed payments to B.C. a tariff and “a step backward” for the Canadian economy...  The B.C. government was against the idea of a new pipeline, but Carney was evidently able to use federal incentives to negotiate a compromise. In exchange for not opposing the deal, B.C. gets a promise to keep the tanker ban and billions of dollars in federal investments for a range of projects, including a new eight-lane tunnel, an expanded electrical transmission line, an expanded mine, LNG projects, and a port expansion. The deal also includes federal money for whale protection and child care...  It’s possible that other provinces could follow suit and start demanding compensation for other goods travelling through their jurisdictions, Kennedy said, but that a pipeline and a truck filled with agricultural goods or auto parts, for example, do not leave the same footprint.  “It’s a political issue, not a legal issue,” he said.  Brian Lee Crowley, Macdonald-Laurier Institute managing director, said landing a pipeline deal is positive overall, but that it was a mistake for Ottawa to negotiate a royalty for B.C.  “This is a loss for Canadian federalism,” he said. “You don’t need B.C.’s permission — it’s federal jurisdiction.”  Crowley said he doubts if British Columbians will be pleased if this new framework leads to lumber or other products from their province being tariffed as they’re transported east through Alberta and onto other Canadian markets."
Damn Trump holding Canada back and being responsible for a decade of stagnant GDP per capita!

Rupa Subramanya on X - "LOL. After a year and a half of Team Canada, we're still talking about removing internal trade barriers. It turns out the hardest trade agreement to negotiate is the one between Canadians. "

Jason Kenney on X - "I was opposed to the convoy blockades, so read this piece with an open mind.  What a mistake. Total slop. Repeats the completely debunked claim that convoy activists attempted arson in an Ottawa high rise apartment building.   With huge government subsidies, foundation money, and charitable status, why can’t @thewalrus  afford a fact checker?  The whole piece reflects the cartoonish smugness of the left, basically stating (without even attempting to make a coherent argument) that the right is monolithically in the service of elite corporate interests, and the left is the heroic champion of working people.  The truth is that the more extreme elements of the convoy movement resembled a kind of right wing anarchism, i.e. a profound distrust of and hostility to institutions and elites, including corporate elites, with a desire to tear it all down.  The notion that the Convoy movement was somehow in the service of big corporate interests is obviously risible.  Ironically, this sophomoric leftism is being published by a magazine that is funded by @TD_Canada , inter alia, a perfect example of corporate wokism as described in Sohrab Amari’s Tyranny, Inc."

Toronto Star on X - "‘You better show some respect’ — Canadian rocker Bryan Adams takes aim at Donald Trump in new single ‘51st State’"
Ezra Levant on X - "Bryan Adams has lived in London for 30 years. Maybe he and Mike Myers can start a club: Canadians Who Left Canada for Tax Reasons, but Who Still Have a Lot to Say to the Rest of Us."

Doug Ford, Scott Moe vow to reduce provincial trade barriers (2018)
Doug Ford on X - "Today, Canada’s premiers met in Charlottetown to discuss how we can stand up to tariffs, support our workers and unlock our country’s incredible potential. Team Canada is united as we work to protect Canadians."
Damn Trump!

John Thomson on X - "Can Canada survive 912 more days until Trump is gone? Yes, of course.   But I want to know this:   When Trump is gone, and 95% of our problems with productivity, economic growth, debt, housing, immigration, taxes, foreign investment, crime, infrastructure projects and, foreign influence, remain unchanged….  Will Canada survive that?"
They'll just run the usual left wing playbook. All of Canada's problems until the end of time will be blamed on Trump

Paul Lemoine on X - "Trump has threatened our independence and wants to destroy our economy. You don’t consider that to be our biggest problem?"
John Thomson on X - "This mindset is our biggest problem.  If you look at the state of the country and remove Trump from the equation, it doesn’t reconcile how bad things are here.  Trump isn’t letting child molesters and rapists go free into our society or giving out soft sentences so criminals can avoid deportation.   Trump isn’t blocking our natural resources from reaching international markets.  Trump didn’t create our housing, debt or immigration issues.   Trump didn’t let our military wither on the vine.  Trump didn’t allow our government and institutions to be infiltrated and co-opted by hostile PRC and other foreign operatives.  Trump didn’t allow for Hamas and ISIS adjacent terrorist organizations to run amok in our streets and terrorize Jewish Canadians and largely undermine the basic tenets of our society and the rule of law.   None of that was Trump. All of that was our government and our courts.  Trump is a distraction, and should be treated largely as such. He’s an easy excuse for having to take accountability for our own failings.    Anyone who says otherwise has terminal denialism that like a malignancy will eventually prove fatal to this country."

Scott Robertson on X - "Lewis: "What is the major threat to Canada's security today? It is the US. I don't think there's a way to prevent US military incursion in Canada. So don't use our fear of the US to just create a whole new military industrial complex ... I'm for rebooting the whole conversation."
Jonathan Kay on X - "okay so the message is that the US is coming for us but we can't defend ourselves so instead we do a "reboot" thing. thank you for watching bubblehead television"
Left wing logic is to just surrender to your enemies. They think that about Russia, China and Islamists too, when they're not uniting with them to destroy the West

No, the media did not 'lynch' Jason Arday

Left wingers going after the Guardian because it didn't cover for him anymore is a great lesson about how they are willing to burn their favourite institutions to the ground in their quest for moral purity.

Left wing logic: if someone has DEI-ed "qualifications", that means he is "qualified" and if you disagree, you're a bigot spreading misinformation.

No, the media did not 'lynch' Jason Arday
The late Cambridge professor was ultimately a victim of both his own fabulism and hyper-progressive dogma

JASON Arday’s death is tragic. Nobody with any semblance of compassion could think otherwise.

But I do wish that we could be spared the complaints from various sanctimonious commentators that Arday was merely an ‘obscure’ academic who became the victim of a racist witch-hunt.

The probing and questioning and exposure of Arday were entirely legitimate. There is compelling evidence that he was guilty of plagiarism and had made a series of fantastical claims about his life and career. Even if he were a little-known academic at some low-ranking university, those facts alone would merit coverage and commentary.

But Arday somehow, and in spite of what some assert was the mediocre standard of his academic work, ended up being appointed as a professor at one of the world’s most august seats of learning – the University of Cambridge – where his students, who had doubtless worked extremely hard to get there, were paying large fees for the privilege of being taught by him. In that context, it would be perverse for the media to have not afforded the story any significance.

And far from being obscure, Arday had happily engaged with the media – often speaking about his fabricated backstory – over many years. He appeared on several TV shows – including as a panellist on the BBC’s Question Time – and guest edited Radio 4’s flagship Today programme. He even carried the Olympic torch.

Moreover, he had secured a major publishing deal for his autobiography, which was set to be released in Britain and the US just as the recent scandal broke. By no measure was this man ‘obscure’; he plainly had no wish to be obscure.

When a fellow academic – Dr David Harris, professor emeritus at Plymouth Marjon University – began to question his credentials, Arday accused him of harassment and set the police on him. When Jack Grove from Times Higher Education magazine started investigating, he was subjected to a police inquiry and received a threatening letter from the leading libel solicitors Carter Ruck. Groves’s story was duly spiked.

All of which goes to show that Arday was evidently not averse to hounding others when he felt like it.

But let us be blunt: this scandal is not just about Arday’s fabulism. It is also about the increasingly controversial doctrine of ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI); the obsession of our political, corporate and educational institutions with pushing that doctrine; and how it might have led to someone with Arday’s subpar credentials being appointed in the first place.

Even for those of us on the political left, it should be clear that DEI has become a racket. What may have begun as a well-meaning crusade to overcome mindless prejudice and discrimination has patently mutated into a malignant social tumour, infecting every area of our society and dividing citizen from citizen.

For the leaders of our institutions, who appear heedless to both the damage it wreaks and the opposition it attracts among large parts of the populace, DEI serves as a new national religion, with adherence to its precepts regarded as a test of one’s virtue. Fail to preach the gospel, and be condemned as a reactionary and bigot.

These fundamentalists (for that is what they are) are supported in their mission by legislation, in the form of the Equality Act 2010, which (at Part 11) expressly permits differential treatment of citizens according to their ‘protected characteristics’, as well as sprawling and increasingly politicised HR departments which enforce, often ruthlessly and with no space for dissent, the creed of their masters.

Ever anxious to demonstrate their progressive credentials, the better to enhance their own reputations and careers, and to earn social kudos among their peers, institutional leaders make use of every lever available to embed this creed – and to let everyone know they have embedded it.

That all of this has resulted in the diminution of meritocracy and the elevation of some individuals to positions for which they are simply not suitable is, I would venture, undeniable. And that the perceived unfairness of it all has sown the seeds of wider social conflict and fragmentation across our society is similarly indisputable.

The Arday case carries sad echoes of an affair involving a former work colleague of mine. Wayne Brown, who was black, served as a London firefighter. He rose through the ranks and was eventually installed as the chief officer of West Midlands fire service – the second largest brigade in England.

Brown’s appointment – he was the first black chief officer in British fire service history – was seen by his new employer as a coup. But it was quickly accompanied by chatter suggesting parts of his backstory had been fabricated and that he had been promoted above his ability. Questions were raised over what, if any, due diligence had taken place.

After credible evidence emerged that he had embellished his CV – falsely claiming to have secured a degree – Brown was (after a fashion) placed under formal investigation. Within days, he had taken his own life.

Brown, like Arday, should not have been given the job in the first place, for he did not hold the required qualifications. And it wouldn’t have taken much effort for his employer to have discovered that for itself. But for reasons we can probably guess, the employer appeared keen to nail down the appointment.

In the end, DEI, especially when applied so zealously, creates its own victims. And these victims are often the same individuals who supporters of the dogma claim be to assisting. It takes those with middling ability and presents them as paragons of excellence - and then, when things unravel, it demonises anyone who dares to level criticism or point out the obvious.

Thus, in the wake of the fall-out that followed Arday’s exposure, the DEI crusaders smeared as racist or hateful anyone who so much as questioned the veracity of the late professor’s version of events or suggested that his appointment had more to do with political expediency than it did academic and professional integrity. If the truth is likely to get in the way of their ideology, then the truth can take a hike, and anyone who speaks it must be besmirched and bullied into silence.

Such a mindset might also explain why, after it was presented with what appeared to be incontrovertible evidence that Arday had plagiarised someone else’s work while enrolled there, Liverpool’s John Moores University made a finding to the contrary. Would an academic institution – which might ordinarily be expected to pride itself on defending truth – really go to the extreme of denying the obvious in an effort to avoid exposing a high-profile poster boy for diversity? So it seemed.

One of the other disturbing aspects of the Arday affair is the manner in which some politically-motivated journalists have inveighed against anyone – including their professional colleagues – who has defended the investigations and coverage in the name of legitimate journalistic inquiry. To witness those who should be the first to defend the principle of a free press make arguments that run contrary to it is rather chilling.

And for all the claims that it was right-wing media outlets and commentators who were driving the coverage, it should be noted that some of the most incisive and informed reporting on the scandal appeared in the pages of the left-wing Guardian.

Some have suggested that Arday would not have faced such fierce scrutiny if he had been white. I’m not sure that’s true at all. In fact, it could easily be argued that if he were white but had precisely the same ability and credentials, he would not have been appointed in the first place.

At any rate, where evidence has emerged that high-profile white people have engaged in fabrication and falsehood, they have often been subjected to robust interrogation. Witness, for example, the fall from grace of journalist Johann Hari, forced out of his job at the Independent and stripped of the Orwell prize on account of his plagiarism. Or the exposure – including by means of a major newspaper investigation and television documentary – of Raynor Winn, who appears to have made up key chunks of her best-selling memoir, The Salt Path. The reputations of both were – quite reasonably – dragged through the mud.

If the coverage of the Arday case was more intense, then it is probably attributable to the fact that people felt the story was not anchored only in his personal dishonesty but spoke to the wider public debate around DEI - and represented perhaps the most striking example we have yet seen of that dogma’s pernicious effects. The coverage was no less valid for that. In fact, it was a perfectly legitimate angle for journalists and commentators to explore.

It is very possible – and, if true, would be deeply regrettable – that Arday did not have sufficient support measures in place when he was finally exposed. But that’s on others. The investigation and coverage were demonstrably in the public interest and, in probing and scrutinising in the way it did, the media was simply doing its job.

There is, of course, always a balance to be struck in these things. In the coverage and commentary accompanying such scandals, we must not lose our humanity or the recognition that real people and their families lay at the heart of it. But neither should we retreat in the face of smears and moral blackmail. Jason Arday was a person who attracted widespread public attention and wielded not-insubstantial political, social and cultural influence. If he wasn’t what he claimed to be, he deserved to be exposed. And so do those who, in the face of all common sense, and for the purposes of their own militant ideology, elevated him to a role for which he was neither qualified nor suitable.

Arday’s death may well have occurred by his own hand. But the inescapable truth is that it took place at the altar of identity politics.

 

 

 

Links - 28th August 2026 (1 - Climate Change)

Trans Mountain proves the business case for a West Coast pipeline - "The Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline celebrated its second birthday, and its gift to its owners, the taxpayers of Canada, is that it is already full. In industry speak, it was “apportioned” in June for the first time ever; the pipeline could not accommodate all the requests of oil shippers to use it.  While the pipeline had an ignominious start—a $34 billion boondoggle—the ability to get Canadian oil to Pacific tidewater has proven to be priceless. This is all relevant, of course, because another pipeline to the West Coast will be proposed by Alberta by the end of the month. The professional naysayer class is already undermining its long term viability. The undeniable success of TMX makes their case difficult to make...   Despite being approved by the federal regulator in 2016, TMX soon became a perfect storm of regulatory, political, and financial risk due to disputes over the pipeline between B.C. and Alberta and litigation from Burnaby, Vancouver, and First Nations...   The pipeline was embroiled in challenges, delays, and cost overruns. The constitutional duty to consult and accommodate principle was tested, a pandemic erupted, and floods raged. At one point, work in one section was stopped for four months over the summer (also known in Canada as “construction season”) because some nests from a common hummingbird species were discovered.  TMX did not go billions over budget; it went tens of billions over budget. Alongside the political rejection of the Northern Gateway pipeline in 2018, a red warning light flashed over Canada to any prospective proponent or investor: you cannot build pipelines here. The passing of the “no more pipelines” Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, and the “no more tankers” C-48 Oil Tanker Moratorium added insult to injury, and it was widely expected that TMX, which finally entered operations in May 2024, would be the last new oil pipeline to the West Coast in Canada, so poisoned was the well.   But then Donald Trump came along and threatened to annex Canada and make it the 51st state. And the easiest way for Canada to diversify exports—building a million-barrel oil pipeline to reach Asian markets—became not only palatable, but popular. We were going to become an energy superpower.   Some pockets of Canadians are still opposed, of course. Of their favourite arguments, a few are on repeat: there is no private proponent; we shouldn’t use taxpayer money for pipelines; and there is no demand/need. The case of TMX helps counter these. At the outset, let me say that of course it would be better if the West Coast pipeline had a private proponent and didn’t need government de-risking in the form of loans or equity. We have that, already, in the Enbridge Mainline Optimization (400,000 bpd) and the South Bow-Bridger pipeline on part of the old Keystone XL route (550,000 bpd), which have already attracted commitments from shippers. If we were satisfied with just sending more oil to the U.S., we could be laissez-faire. But we aren’t, and we shouldn’t be, because we sell oil into that market at a discount to global prices; because optionality is an asset, especially as wild cards like tariffs and Venezuelan heavy oil production come up; and because oil is a powerful tool for bolstering alliances and exerting soft power.   So we need the pipeline on a route that goes through B.C. that is at risk of political and legal opposition, significant cost overruns,  and—don’t forget—still has an oil tanker moratorium at the end of it. No private proponent is yet willing to take on that risk, and so, like the original Trans Mountain as well as its expansion, there is a need for governments to step up...   One should not expect that Canadian taxpayers will lose out from the pipeline. Far from it. In the case of TMX, the pipeline is a profitable asset that the Crown owns and receives dividends from. In the first quarter of 2026, an aggregate of $448 million was paid to the Government of Canada, consisting of $148 million in interest payments and $300 million in cash dividends. Trans Mountain has returned $2.2 billion in cash to Canada since May 2024, and that number will rise as it receives higher tolls from expanded usage.  The pipeline has not been bought with taxpayers’ money, but rather financed with the federal government’s AAA credit rating and paid for through the tolls from oil producers that use it. The pipeline’s exorbitant cost means it will take a few extra years than desired for those tolls to pay off the debt. But it will be paid off with revenues—not taxes."
Left wingers are deathly opposed to East-West pipelines, but they also claim they want to reduce dependence on the US. Ironic.
Left wing logic: throw in so much regulation that it's impossible for the private sector to undertake projects, then proclaim that the "free market" has spoken and that the government shouldn't "subsidise" projects (ironic, given that they keep demanding government expand its role in the economy, too, building housing, continuing to ban private healthcare etc)

Britain’s oldest sugar factory shuts because of sky-high energy costs - "Britain’s oldest sugar factory is to close because of sky-high energy costs.  The site at Cantley, in Norfolk, was the first sugar-processing factory to open in the UK and has been operating since 1912.  More than 100 people face losing their jobs as part of the closure. The shutdown of the plant, which is operated by British Sugar, could come as early as February 2027."
Climate change hystericists won't stop till all industry has been shut down

Scandal engulfs Britain’s electricity grid - "Neso has found itself thrust uncomfortably into the spotlight amid allegations of a cover-up concerning how secure the grid really is... Evidence of grid instability is being systematically hidden, they say, and corporate affairs staff have pressured control room engineers to avoid taking actions that would risk public embarrassment.  The explosive claims – which remain unproven and are now being investigated – may sound technical but could not be more serious.  They also come against a backdrop of increasing scrutiny of Neso because of the front-line role it plays in delivering Ed Miliband’s 2030 clean power targets. Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, Coutinho reminded MPs that “life and death” decisions were being taken by Neso every day.  “If they don’t get it right, we will have blackouts,” she said. “And in blackouts, people die.”... Within weeks of Miliband’s appointment as Energy Secretary, Neso staff were also handed a political hot potato as he commissioned them to advise on whether his plan to make the electricity system almost entirely “clean” by 2030 was feasible.  In a report published in November 2024, the public company responded “yes” – giving Miliband the expert endorsement he wanted, albeit in heavily caveated form.  Neso also backed Miliband’s highly contested claim that his green energy rollout would cut consumer bills in the same timeframe.  Yet within days, the findings were being picked apart as critics argued the conclusions rested on a series of questionable assumptions and counter-factual scenarios.  For instance, the Centre for Policy Studies criticised Neso’s “dubious” claim that Miliband’s clean power plan would be cheaper than the status quo. Coutinho and the Conservatives also highlighted the way Miliband’s department and his advisers had been repeatedly consulted during the drafting of Neso’s report.  In emails first obtained by the Guido Fawkes website, Neso officials asked their government colleagues to comment on the “messaging, tone and structure” of the document as well as “anything that you think is missing and anything you strongly dislike or can’t live with!”.  Another area where the grid operator faces scrutiny is in its annual “winter outlook” reports, which have continually asserted that the electricity system is becoming more secure each year – even as the public body resorts to more and more short-term measures to keep the lights on.  On June 23, as they scrambled to cope with higher-than-expected electricity demand and low output from domestic wind farms, control room staff cut power exports to the Continent at short notice to help balance the system.  Later that same week, they were also forced to issue two “electricity margin notices” – something never done before in summer – that urged all power plants with spare capacity to come forward. It was during this week that whistleblowers allege records were not properly kept and that particular as-yet-unnamed stabilising actions were eschewed to save Neso’s blushes."
Time to double down on renewables and net zero!

Millions of households could face threat of emergency blackouts - "Measures that came into effect this week give the National Energy System Operator (Neso) the authority to tackle electricity shortages with rolling power cuts around the country... Protected sites, such as hospitals, water treatment facilities and military bases, are not within the scheme’s scope.  However, sceptics said the new rules underlined the difficulty grid bosses face managing fluctuating levels of wind and solar generation, which make up a growing share of the UK’s electricity mix."

Britain ‘risks winter fuel shortages’ without North Sea gas field - "Britain risks fuel shortages over the winter if Andy Burnham fails to approve a new gas project in the North Sea, its operator has said.  Neil McCulloch, whose energy company Adura is preparing to drill for gas at the Jackdaw field, said the site would be crucial to securing gas supplies this winter.  The project faced a legal challenge from environmental campaigners and was blocked after a court ruled that it had been approved illegally."

BP unveils fresh £750m blow from failed bet on net zero - "BP has revealed a fresh $1bn (£750m) hit from its botched net zero strategy, just days after its new chief executive promised to restore stability to the embattled oil giant.  The FTSE 100-listed company said it expected to write down the value of its low-carbon and energy transition division by a further $1bn, on top of a $5bn write-down it booked earlier this year.  It has been seeking to unwind a green energy strategy set out in 2020 under Bernard Looney, its former chief executive, to cut fossil fuel production and reach net zero emissions by 2050, following a backlash from shareholders. Mr Looney slashed oil output by 40pc and invested billions in green power projects before leaving in 2023 following a review of his personal relationships with colleagues.  Murray Auchincloss, his successor, lasted less than two years in the top job amid investor impatience with the company’s net zero turnaround."
How ignorant. Don't they know that renewables are the future and they need to move Beyond Petroleum?!

How soon will world's oil supplies peak? (2005) - "If world crude-oil production hits its peak and then falls within the next five to 10 years, would America be ready? The answer is, almost certainly not.  A debate unlike anything seen since the oil embargoes of the 1970s has erupted over the future of world petroleum supplies. A chorus of experts claims that the peak in production may be approaching, and that the impact of a peak and subsequent dropoff would be devastating to the world's economies."
Left wingers were claiming that 20 years ago, there weren't predictions of peak oil being 5 years away. Of course, now climate change hystericists claim that in 5 years time, fossil fuel demand will drop off, so building a pipeline is silly. Of course, at the same time they complain about greedy oil companies earning lots of profits for decades if the taxpayer acts as a backstop against self inflicted legal and regulatory risk. Left wing ideology at work again, working backwards from the conclusion

Meme - Jim Steele @JimSteeleSkepti: "There were more fires in Canada and the USA during the Little Ice Age. Blaming the fires on climate change is just more grifting alarmist propaganda!"
"Chavardes (2022) Converging and diverging burn rates in North American boreal forests from the Little Ice Age to the present." in International Journal of Wildland
Fig. 2. Burn rates and their standardised breakpoint probabilities over time for the 16 fire-history study sites in North American boreal forests."

Climate change is real, but it is an unfortunate fact that renewables are useless - "Panic, always a mistake, is most dangerous when the problem is real. And the ill-informed panic of the educated is worst of all, since it guarantees the selection of specious and even counterproductive remedies.  The last 25 years of British energy policy is an extended demonstration of that principle... There is no question that the situation in France is grave, but one televised summer is not a firm foundation for energy policy stretching many decades into the future. However, let us concede the alarming premise, and move to the question that actually matters. If we must act, will the action proposed, renewable energy, really work? Here the scepticism of the Right, however crudely expressed online, is founded on something more than prejudice, firstly on physics, and also on decades of unusually well-documented failure.  It is often said, and Tim Stanley repeats it, that “the renewables revolution” is already under way. But is it? Global energy consumption has tripled since the early 1970s, bringing vast advances in wellbeing, but virtually all of that growth has been supplied by oil, coal and gas. Renewables, including the traditional biomass on which a significant part of the world still cooks, accounted for some 12 per cent of primary energy in 1971.  They account for about 15 per cent now, and much of that modest proportional gain is the result of heavy subsidy in the West, over £200bn in the UK alone since 2002, as well as intense market coercion favouring wind and solar and deprecating coal and gas. The cost has been large, yet the resulting renewables output is not only modest but still, after all these years, in need of subsidy. “Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.” The mountains laboured, and brought forth a ridiculous mouse... subsidised, zero-marginal-cost, weather-dependent generation has driven the firm generators that guarantee security of supply out of the energy market, and that plant must now be paid to exist. This is an indirect subsidy to renewables, and there are others.  Overall, grid balancing costs ran at some £370m a year in the early 2000s, before wind and solar, but now amount to several billion annually. Transmission charges have also climbed as the grid is extended and reinforced to connect remote wind with centres of demand. Adding the direct and the indirect together, my colleague Lee Moroney and I at Renewable Energy Foundation estimate that the total renewables subsidy cost to consumers since 2002 stands at about £223bn in 2024 prices – near £8,000 per household – running now at roughly £25bn a year.  Renewables subsidy accounts for something like 40 per cent of the total cost of electricity supply in this country. Most tellingly of all, the subsidy per megawatt hour of renewable electricity generated has not fallen but has actually risen by about half in real terms since 2005, to around £200.  How can 20-plus years of lavish public support have been so unsuccessful? Physics. Electricity consumers do not buy energy pure and simple, they buy a steady rate of joules per second – power in the literal sense – available on demand and at a constant frequency and voltage. That is a low-entropy, high-quality product. Wind and sunlight supply energy in abundance, true, but in dilute, disordered, stochastic flows.  The gap between what the consumer needs and what wind and solar can supply is no mere detail; it is a fundamental difference of thermodynamic quality, and it cannot be wished away. The necessary physical order has to be supplied by something, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is quite clear that order is never free.  So the grid system provides the remedial correction – with gas turbines held in readiness, synchronous compensation, interconnectors, batteries, reinforced transmission, and a constant traffic of balancing actions by NESO, the system operator. That is the entropy correction, and it must be paid for. Consequently, the falling auction prices for renewables and the rising system costs are not in contradiction. The cost has been moved, not removed.  These costs have consequences. Britain’s electricity consumption has already fallen by 23 per cent since 2005. This is not efficiency but price rationing, and total primary energy consumption is down by an alarming 30 per cent over the same period. The likely end of this experiment is not a serene glide into post-carbon uplands but a distressed retreat to unabated coal. When electricity, for air conditioning perhaps, becomes expensive and unreliable, populations will demand the cheapest on offer, and that is very likely to be coal, an excellent, low-entropy fuel in physical terms though high emitting. The green Left’s hostility to nuclear power was, as Tim Stanley said, foolish. But the enthusiasm for renewables that he shares has been even worse. It consumed capital, engineering talent and the political will which could have delivered a serious decarbonisation programme grounded in nuclear and high-efficiency gas. Instead it has built a costly yet fragile grid that is jeopardised by routine events that would have been shrugged off by the robust (and cheaper) system of the past."

Konstantin Kisin on X - "This is very worth reading because it beautifully lays out the faulty thinking that has given us suicidal economic policy that has also made no impact on climate change whatsoever.  Characteristically, it pretends that those who oppose Net Zero do so because they deny that the climate is changing (no one sensible does), that outsourcing our emissions to poor countries, an accounting trick, is somehow green (it's not) and, most importantly, challenges the argument that the overwhelming majority of carbon emissions produced in the world today are emitted by countries that care about economic growth way more than they care about "saving the planet" (China, India etc) by citing Kenya whose entire annual emissions are roughly equivalent to what China emits in about 8 hours.  The hoax is not climate change. The hoax is that we can stop it by making ourselves poorer."

We don't need to trash the economy to save the planet - "The Right has a “misplaced sympathy for the devil” over fossil fuels, according to Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley. It is a good line, but I plead not guilty. I have no romantic enthusiasm for coal, no shares in Shell, and no desire to see England turn to khaki dust. I do, however, have an attachment to British workers keeping their jobs, to pensioners affording their electricity bills, and to policies which are at least somewhat connected to generating economic growth. If that is diabolism, all I can say is the devil has become remarkably dull...  we must remember that we have the power to change policy in this country only (though in fact we won’t even have that soon either, once the Government’s ghastly EU reset is in place). However desirable we might find it for other countries to look at the world as we do and come to the same conclusions, they don’t – and all our wailing and gnashing of teeth here in Britain is not going to change that. Look at the reality. In China, one-sixth of the global economy on its own, carbon emissions have gone up by more than 250 per cent since 2000. China’s energy consumption is around four times as much as in 2000 and electricity consumption has gone up even faster. Both are powered by coal, which China is using at its highest-ever levels. Coal is now about 70 per cent of China’s domestic energy production: solar and wind are just over 5 per cent. It’s not difficult to list similar figures for the other major developing economies.  This isn’t surprising. These countries want to get rich and the best way of doing that is to increase energy output as fast as they can – and that mainly means coal and other fossil fuels. The few anecdotes Tim quotes don’t change this reality. It is a happy chance for Kenya if they have geothermal resources they can draw upon. But they still have a quarter as much energy per person as Britain and most of that is burning biofuels and animal waste. They need something better than that. Or take Bangladesh. Tim’s concern that a third of its agricultural GDP may be lost rests on one unsupported and un-footnoted speculative sentence in a World Bank technical report. He is right to point to population displacement, but that has sadly been happening in the Ganges delta since time immemorial, and the casualties from it have fallen dramatically as Bangladesh has got richer.  The fundamental problem for those who think like Tim is that the rest of the world wants to get rich and live like Westerners. For now, fossil fuels and, in some cases, nuclear represent the only viable route. Investing in renewables does not secure your energy supply until the battery storage problem is solved – which is still many years away.  For all the progress we have made in Britain – and we are a world leader in emissions reduction, contrary to what hand-wringing NGOs would have you think – solar and wind power supply under 5 per cent of our total energy. No one is getting out of fossil fuels – unless they want to get poorer. Even if we ignore these facts, nothing we do in Britain could change them. We produce 0.8 per cent of global emissions. You could vaporise the entire British economy and it would reduce global temperatures in 2100 by just one hundredth of one degree. British emissions have already fallen by half over the last 30 years as we have introduced expensive renewables, reduced energy consumption and exported energy-intensive industry. This has had precisely zero impact on most of the rest of the world, either practical or, it seems, moral. British voters and workers have already more than done their bit. We have tried to exercise leadership. The problem is that there hasn’t been any followership. The answer to the climate problem does not lie in terrifying ourselves or in a Soviet-style reordering of our entire economy around carbon emissions. It lies in adaptation to a slowly warming climate and in adopting new low-carbon technology if and when it becomes economically viable and, crucially, better than its predecessors.  Conservative politicians, of all kinds, ought not to be captured by big unproven ideas regardless of their human consequences. Benjamin Disraeli did clean the Thames, and he was right to. But he did it because a Londoner could smell the result, within a Londoner’s lifetime, for a price a Londoner could bear. He did not tax the poor of Whitechapel to alter the temperature in 100 years’ time on the off-chance that Shanghai would follow suit. That is the difference between responsible stewardship and pointless sacrifice... Tim thinks the online Right looks silly. Perhaps it sometimes does. But there is nothing clever about spending a fortune to change the weather by a hundredth of a degree, and nothing particularly conservative about saying we have no choice in the matter."
Clearly, if the British destroy their economy even more, the rest of the world will suddenly be inspired to be equally suicidal, so they need to double down

BP’s North Sea exit shows Ed Miliband has been a disaster for Britain - "Ed Miliband leaves behind his role as Energy Secretary with the UK facing the highest industrial electricity costs in the world.  Industries such as chemicals and building materials are under enormous pressure... There are so many different ways that Miliband has damaged the British economy that it is often hard for even his most assiduous critics to keep track of them all. And yet there is one that should absolutely top the list... It is impossible to blame BP for the decision to finally give up on the North Sea.  It was one of the pioneers of offshore oil exploration six decades ago, but it has now decided it is no longer worth the hassle.  A windfall tax confiscates any money it might make, it is subject to constant lawfare, and while Andy Burnham has signalled a more pragmatic approach, the Government has until now refused to give it permission to expand its fields.  While rivals such as Norway’s state-owned Equinor deliver bumper profits, driven by increased output in its share of the North Sea, BP faces nothing but restrictions and levies. It is only doing what makes sense for its shareholders, and that means retreating... As energy secretary, Miliband made two crucial mistakes. First, he prioritised net zero over energy security.  Given that Britain accounts for less than 1pc of global emissions, and we have already dramatically reduced them (unfortunately almost entirely by closing down heavy manufacturing industries instead of switching to green production), there is relatively little that we can do about the state of the global climate, decarbonisation of the power grid aside.  But the security of our energy supplies is entirely within our own control, and anyone can see that domestic production is far more reliable, as well as better for the balance of payments, than oil and gas that has to be imported. The energy secretary could have balanced the two, and reached a reasonable compromise, but Miliband gave no sign of even contemplating that. Next, he failed to seize the opportunity to expand production, especially of gas, at a time when there was significant demand across Europe. It is not an issue of taking climate change seriously or not.  Everyone knows that we will need fossil fuels while making the transition to cleaner forms of energy, and they may as well create jobs and tax revenue in this country instead of in Qatar, the US or Norway.  If Miliband had demonstrated just a slither of flexibility, BP might still be expanding, instead of shutting down.  After his two years in power, Miliband has left a trail of damage in his wake. Energy prices have soared out of control.  Industrial energy is now four times more expensive in Britain than in the US, and twice the price of France, showing little sign of coming down any time soon. That has made it completely impossible to remain competitive in industries such as steel or building materials where energy can account for 40pc to 50pc of the cost base.  And whole swathes of industry have been forced to close as the added costs of both energy and the green levies have crushed them. Britain dropped out of the top 10 largest manufacturing nations last year, overtaken by rivals such as Taiwan, Mexico and even Russia, and shows little sign of recapturing that place now.  Meanwhile cement production has fallen to a 75-year low, meaning that even if the Government wanted to build houses, there wouldn’t be any domestic materials for the job. Of course, there are different reasons for each decision. But Miliband’s disastrous decisions have clearly been a major factor.  It is going to become even worse. Instead of being thrown out of office, as any sensible prime minister would do, Burnham has promoted Miliband to Foreign Secretary.  Instead of going straight to Washington to try to lay the diplomatic groundwork to persuade the Trump administration to lift its latest round of tariffs on Britain, Miliband spent his first week in charge of foreign affairs flying to Spain for some meaningless waffle about fighting climate change together. We can safely assume that backing the Business Secretary on the bread and butter issues of tariffs, trade deals and promoting exports, which should be the core priorities for the Foreign Secretary of a country with massive debts and desperately in need of a boost to growth, will be forgotten about for the next few years, while they will have plenty of photo ops where Miliband can boast about “moral leadership”.  Red Ed has turned into a one-man wrecking ball, taking out huge chunks of our industrial base, destroying the North Sea,and patting himself on the back as the country’s energy supply becomes more precarious."
Climate change hystericists are still praising the UK, because they're totally clueless and/or see destroying the economy as a good thing

Links - 27th August 2026 (2 - Women)

Expectations around dating are insane these days. : r/Vent - "Matched with a girl on Tinder...her first 3 questions were "do you drive, do you live alone, do you usually pay for first dates?" Meanwhile she's a cashier at Wal Mart, doesn't have a license, and lives with her mother at 35 years old.  I'm not hating on people for struggling but Jesus Christ...maybe be less aggressive with your materialistic vetting when your lifestyle is exactly the same as a 15 year old kid."

Shrija on X - "Women are experts at giving ugly realities pretty names.
Baddie = Fallen woman
Plus size = Obese
Independent woman = Can't keep a man
High standards = Unrealistic expectations
Finding myself = Whoring around
Soft life = I want a man to fund me
Manifesting love = Chasing rich men
Body positivity = Refuse to lose weight or hit the gym
Feminine energy = Only submissive when the guy is 6’2”+ & makes 6 figures
I’m working on myself = Still on dating apps every night
Talking stage = Keeping 4-5 options open
Demisexual = I sleep around but call it “emotional connection”
Homely = Can’t cook, can’t clean, expects maid + cook
Modern yet traditional = Sleeps around in college, becomes “pure” for rishta
Self-love era = Posting thirst traps while ignoring actual responsibilities
Emotional intelligence = Weaponized crying & manipulation
Princess treatment = Treat me like royalty while I act like a gremlin
Healing my trauma = Blames parents/brother/ex for all her bad choices
Travel addict = Living off daddy’s money or OnlyFans or Exclusive IG Content
Boundaries = Rules for you, not for her"

The brutal gangster Green Girls 'addicted' to crime who'll stop at nothing to smuggle drugs, plant bombs… and even kill - "THEY look like innocent, fun-loving young women – yet they’re being armed with skin-melting firebombs, driving hitmen to executions, and stashing guns for some of the world’s most ruthless gangs.  Meet the so-called Green Girls behind a terrifying new wave of violence plaguing Europe, with experts telling The Sun that they will take on the deadliest assignments to prove they’re “tougher” than male gangsters – as they become “addicted” to crime. The baby-faced criminals are a key part of a brutal criminal underworld that stretches out from the suburbs of Sweden’s capital Stockholm all the way across Europe.  But behind that label sits a staggering reality, with as many as 10,000 women now being linked to criminal networks, according to Swedish cops.  Their twisted roles include helping keep drug pipelines alive, weapons hidden for their gangster lovers, and help lure targets out for attacks.  And according to experts, many of them are lured in for one bizarre reason – “out of love”...   Girls as young as 11 or 12 are already fantasising about gang life, coaxed in by social media trends promising cash, status and a “rich boyfriend” escape route, reports SVD.  Last year alone, 280 girls aged 15 to 17 were charged with murder, manslaughter or other violent crimes in Sweden – with many linked to gang violence.  Experts say the figure experts barely scratches the surface of how many are actually working for the networks.  Earning their name as they are fresh recruits, with clean records and easy to miss by the authorities – they are now soldiers on the frontline of an international and ultraviolent gang war...   Natalie Klockars, now 28, grew up in organised crime.  Her Syrian father was a high-ranking member of a drugs-trafficking syndicate in Sweden, locked in high-security prison throughout her childhood.  And her mother also gravitated to gang leaders, with most of Natalie’s stepdads being criminals...   A few have even carried out attacks themselves. And gangs exploit that with precision.  Female homicide suspects still account for only about five per cent — but for Sweden, Dr Khoshnood warns, that’s “unusually high.”  Prosecutors warn some girls are no longer just couriers, but they’re choosing the most violent assignments on offer.  One case involved a 15-year-old girl who elected to shoot a target in the head, with a 17-year-old accomplice pulling the trigger, Swedish outlet ENCA reported.  Investigators say girls now volunteer for the riskiest missions to prove they’re “tougher” than the boys.  This shift is happening as Sweden slides deeper into a violent era, with explosions, shootings, and child hitmen who barely know how to hold a gun."
Are left wingers still pretending there's no problem in Sweden and that the grenade attacks are just firecrackers?

Meme - "How modern women expect men to choose their women"
*Distracted boyfriend variant*
"33+ 3 baby daddies. Multiple bodies (100+)"
"25-40 prime men"
"18-25. 0 body count. No kids"

New research finds that, compared with IUD users, women taking the birth control pill report reduced arousal, more sexual pain, more anxiety and depression, and less sexual satisfaction. : r/psychologyofsex

Meme - "It's starting to make sense
Over 6'0" tall
Unemployed
Muscular
Doesn't raise its own kids
Sleeps all winter
Prefers to be alone
Territorial
Can't communicate
Extremely violent
Has multiple baby mamas"
On women choosing the bear

Meme - Rock Solid @ShitpostRock2: "I like how she proved the point by simply deducing all of this from his looks alone"
Mentiswave: "But I had breakfast last morning!"
Meg | The Feminist Motherhood: "The problem is Joe is not a nice guy, nor is he funny, caring, or have a good personality. Loyalty is questionable."
Wisdom @Wisdom_HQ: "Who would she choose?"
"WHO WOULD SHE CHOOSE?
JOE
- 5'6
- Loyal
- Caring
- Funny
JACK
-6'1
- Handsome
- Cheater
- Toxic"

Thomas Mirus on X - "Many men right now prematurely assume that if a woman is in her late 20s/early 30s and has a career, that means she doesn't want to settle down.  I have had this fear too (sometimes discouraging me from taking an interest in someone), which is why lately I've made a point of asking Catholic women I know IRL if they would want to settle down and raise their own kids. Actually talking to them has made it clear that they and many women they know really want to be wives and mothers, but they aren't even being asked out by men! (I'm talking about pleasant, friendly women of above-average looks.)  Tonight I talked to a close friend (early 30s) who is an extremely impressive and accomplished person (in a profession men find very attractive), but told me she would like nothing better than to quit what she's doing and have a family. She said what she really wants is to be “TAKEN CARE OF”. She said that her experience and that of younger women she knows is that men are simply not asking them out.   There is a lot of messaging in the culture about how women don't or shouldn't want marriage and children, but it is unjust to assume that a woman (especially a Catholic woman) is single because she has bought into that message, or that her having a professional life means she wouldn't prefer to prioritize family.   As my friend strongly emphasized, women have to *wait* for a man to ask them. While they are waiting, they have to pay the bills and occupy themselves with something worthwhile. What else are they supposed to do? It's crazy to blame them all for it.  We have to cultivate solidarity between the sexes and keep lines of communication open. There are enough real problems between us without making faulty assumptions about what the other sex really wants, and without blaming all of the women who are in the same boat men are in (single).  Remember, part of ideological propaganda is not just getting people to think a certain way, but also convincing them that more people think that way than actually do. That creates the sense of even greater division than actually exists, which is what the world and the devil want.  I will always oppose feminism, but going forward, I'm not going to assume that just because a young woman I meet is, e.g., a lawyer, doesn't mean she wouldn't actually prefer to prioritize motherhood instead.  Have conversations about these fraught topics with members of the opposite sex you know in real life, at church, etc. Even if it doesn't lead to you dating that person, it can at least clear the air and lead to greater mutual understanding and compassion. You may find that there is more common ground than you thought and some of your fears and apprehensions about the opposite sex may be alleviated. I find it very refreshing and consoling to converse openly about this stuff with women IRL."
Julia Yost on X - "In my experience, academic and professional accomplishment are simply how women with trad aspirations meet their future husbands. Can’t tell you how many stay-at-home moms I know who have degrees, often terminal, from fancy universities, and/or some years of employment in a prestige field.  Professional-class belonging is class belonging, and is crucial in this era of assortative mating. If you want to marry a high-status, high-earning man (“a provider”), you have to run in his circles. Don’t go to work at a call center and wait for Mr. Bingley to rent Netherfield."
Wilfred Reilly on X - "KEY, OBVIOUS POINT! As I once noted: "Every single 'raver bad bitch' - from UChicago, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan, Purdon't, So-Ill, Miami-OH, etc - that used to party with my friend group is now happily married to an ~rich guy. There are NO exceptions." I mean..."

Meme - "Dating in 2024
Hi beautiful
haii :)
I hope a tiny girl like you can still take a big cock
ew what's wrong w u
What you expect me to treat you like a lady after seeing ur 0f in ur IG bio?"

Meme - Jessica Pin: "At 26, I had never been dumped. I did not have complaints about any of my boyfriends. I had only dumped them because I got bored or one of us moved. So how would I have known anything about red flags at 26?"
Jessica Pin @jess_ann_pin: "I am still in pain, nauseous, and look pregnant as shit after my egg retrieval last Monday. This is all men's fault for being dishonest fuckboys who wasted my time or caused me so much trauma I could not resume dating again for a long time. I have now had 34 eggs painfully harvested from my goddman ovaries only for men to blame women for low birth rates."

Meme - "During World War II, standard Waffen-SS officer and enlisted recruit height requirements typically ranged from 5'7" (1.70m) to 5'10" (1.78 m). Stricter mininums applied to elite unite, such as 5'10" for Hitler's personal bodyguard (Leibstandarte), but these physieal stendards were significantly relaxed as manpower shortages later in the war"
Sara @SaraSaturns: "I'm 5'4. If he's not at least 6'0 he's not a real man."

Real Post Folder on X - "I (26F) ruined my marriage cause I got bored of how perfect my husband (29M) is
My husband is calm and never yells. I grew up in a chaotic house, and his peace started feeling boring. I craved some drama and wanted to see him finally lose his cool.  So, I started a stupid experiment. For a week straight, I dumped an ungodly amount of salt into his dinner. I wanted him to snap and start an argument. Instead, he quietly choked down the food, drank gallons of water, and still thanked me.  On the sixth night, he finally set his spoon down and asked if I was stressed out. I laughed hysterically, and confessed I'd been ruining his food on purpose just to see if he had a backbone.  His face emptied out. He didn't yell. He quietly explained that his father used to scream at his mother over cooking mistakes, and he vowed never to make his wife feel criticized over a meal.  He's ignoring my calls, and his brother just texted me that he's looking for his own apartment. I triggered his childhood trauma and now I've lost the best man I've ever known. How do I fix this?"
The Respecter on X - "this was written by a man. if it was real, and actually written by the woman who did this, the story would feature more backpedaling, excuses and dissembling. this is a man's thinking: got bored, craved drama, ruined food, didn't get reaction I wanted, I messed up, oh no. Too linear."
Anti-Petista Psicótico on X - "Other two things: women usually prefer doing lots of drama and shit tests, like you see in tiktok. Not pranks."

15 year old girl coaxes mentally ill 25 year old man to end his own life on a Discord livestream suffers zero consequences for her actions and is framed as a victim : r/MensRights

Meme - "Women taking photos:
110-132 lbs *full body shot*
132-154 lbs *closeup so you don't see the legs*
154-176 lbs *closeup so you only see the head, shoulders and upper chest"
176-198 lbs *closeup so you only see the head and neck*"

Meme - "Moata, 26
Every single time a man sleeps with a lot of women, he's called a stud. But if a woman sleeps with a lot of men, she's called a slut, and people think this is unfair... Nah. It's completely fair, and I'll tell you why, alright? 'Cause it's fuckin' easy to be a slut. It's fuckin' hard to be a stud. To be a stud you have to be witty, charming, be well-dressed, have nice shoes, and a fake job. To be a slut you just have to be there There are fat ugly sluts out there, there are no fat ugly studs."

Meme - "Remember, When There were no Tattoos, only Natural Beauty"
Hi-Res

Meme - "Biggest Bullet Ever Dodged.
I was dating a woman and we were gonna hang out on a Saturday. Went to her place in the morning to pick her up. She was still getting ready and said she wouldn't be ready for another 5-10 minutes. She asked if I'd go get some McDonalds breakfast for her and come back. I responded, "you're almost ready, we'll just swing by on our way out." She didn't like that answer and her "ask" turned into a demand...and then a very mean demand. Hair half done, she decided to grab the breakfast herself, stormed out of her own house and said "you'd better not be here when I get back", then slammed the door. Wild. As I was pulling up to my house I I get a text from her, "Where are you?!?" Unbelievable."
Clearly, he's a toxic unfuckable misogynist who will die alone and she's better off without him

Any Sg bros with foreign partners outside of the usual south east asia, how's the experience? : r/SingaporeRaw - "My wife is Lithuanian and I live in Lithuania. I’m the 4th Singaporean here, there’s 2 other dudes lol. Honestly we’re boring people. I did my undergrad in the US so I’m a bit louder than her— I used to think all white folk were similar but actually SG culture is way more American than it is to Eastern Europe. In fact I don’t like or feel really welcomed by the culture here. Wife has a different set of love languages that the norm from SG girls (basically food isn’t emphasized here) b

ut other than that I’m boring and broke. When she speaks Russian or Lithuanian I can never tell if she’s scolding or praising me. In this regard , the skills I learned in NS about hiding from the RSM have proven very useful.  I 100% recommend lithuania as a holiday destination though...  Eastern Europe. I don’t identify with the values here at all. I like good food, complaining, being very open and discussing things. I also like negotiating and I think problems must be talked about and that conflict is okay— as long as constructive. Also good to have long term plan. Eastern Europeans? Basically everything I said— just uno reverse lol.  I mean under the skin everyone is the same but here the food and communication really cannot make it. Understandable give the history but personally I also don’t know my long term plans here."
People like to say that food and family are very important in their culture. I once saw someone quip disparagingly that this is the case for all cultures, but apparently not in Lithuania (Dutch food is also described as "simple and unpretentious", so you can read between the lines there). Also given that cutting off family is relatively common in the US and "finding your own family" is a not-unknown theme, you can see that family is relatively less important there

Any Sg bros with foreign partners outside of the usual south east asia, how's the experience? : r/SingaporeRaw - "My ex is German and my current gf is Chinese. The cultural differences are huge. My German ex always paid her share and didn't expect me to pay even if I wanted to and are more equal in the relationship. While my current gf expects gifts a lot more. Also , based on my observations, the Germans are a lot more active with outdoor activities as compared to Chinese on average."

Any Sg bros with foreign partners outside of the usual south east asia, how's the experience? : r/SingaporeRaw - "For non-asians, had ex-es from Russia, Germany and Belgium. They are a lot more willing to share costs for dates, etc and also more focused on spending time outdoors. E.g. going out for hikes, kayaking, road trips. No odor so far. Also, more proactive and intimate.  Asian dates (non-sg) prefers to stay at home, finding different types of food to eat, watching movies, much less outdoorsy. Willing to share costs too but I found to be less than whites."

Any Sg bros with foreign partners outside of the usual south east asia, how's the experience? : r/SingaporeRaw - "Dating a half Japanese with a Malaysian mum.  After decades of exclusively dating only Singaporeans, it's really less stressful. V accommodating and understanding, on the rare occasions we argue, will tell me exactly what's bothering her, doesn't expect gifts and no princess syndrome."

Any Sg bros with foreign partners outside of the usual south east asia, how's the experience? : r/SingaporeRaw - "My girlfriend is White American. I'm studying in the US and I met her here. Had a SG Chinese ex until NS and dated a Chinese girl for a few years.  It's quite good! A lot less expectations than my exes, especially family things. On her end, she likes my biculturality (more Westernized, English first language - while also having a lot of Chinese/Asian culture). On my end, it's interesting to learn about her experiences and to experience American White culture through her connections. She also makes a lot of effort to connect with my family and SG Chinese culture so I'm very grateful."

Any Sg bros with foreign partners outside of the usual south east asia, how's the experience? : r/SingaporeRaw - "SG Chinese bro currently dating an American (3 years), past exes are a German and couple of Americans. Generally, I’ve found that they’re more open, playful, and chill. The video above is exactly how my gf and I are. For some reason I’ve always been and find that I feel a better connection with foreign partners than SG girls."

Any Sg bros with foreign partners outside of the usual south east asia, how's the experience? : r/SingaporeRaw - "Had an ex from Yemen. Smoking hot but hell of a baggage to carry with all the Arab politics within families. At least the experience was great iykyk"

Any Sg bros with foreign partners outside of the usual south east asia, how's the experience? : r/SingaporeRaw - "They’re really outgoing, like to travel different places, try different food & they’re also more physical & louder if y’all know what I mean so abit of getting used to❤️"

Off with her hair: Intrasexually competitive women advise other women to cut off more hair - "Intrasexual competition between women is often covert, and targets rivals' appearance. Here we investigate appearance advice as a vector for female intrasexual competition. Across two studies (N = 192, N = 258) women indicated how much hair they would recommend hypothetical clients have cut off in their hypothetical salon. Clients varied in their facial attractiveness (depicted pictorially), the condition of their hair, and how much hair they wished to have cut off. Participants also provided self-report measures of their own mate value and intrasexual competitiveness. In both studies, participants' intrasexual competitiveness positively predicted how much hair they recommended clients have cut off, especially when the hair was in good condition and the clients reported wanting as little as possible cut off – circumstances wherein cutting off too much hair is most likely to indicate sabotage. Considering data across both collectively, women tended to recommend cutting the most hair off clients they perceived to be as attractive as themselves. These data suggest that just like mating, intrasexual competition may be assortative with respect to mate value. They also demonstrate that competitive motives can impact female-female interactions even in scenarios which feature no prospective mates, and are nominally unrelated to mate guarding or mating competition."
Women tell other women to cut their hair shorter so they will be less attractive

Reddit Lies on X - "Redditor picked bad men 29 times. “How could the patriarchy do this to me!?”"
Seamus (FreedomToons) on X - ">cant figure out why her dates haven't gone well
>first guy on the list of recent dates was homeless
daily reminder that everyone who denigrates the opposite sex is confessing to bad taste"