Links - 22nd July 2026 (2 - Canadian Politics)

Damien Kurek: The Liberal plan to silence the House of Commons | National Post - "the Liberals did not win a majority mandate. They also didn’t pick up any new seats in the recent by-elections; they held on to what they had after two high-profile resignations and one result invalidation. Instead of earning a parliamentary majority, or even more importantly, respecting the makeup of the House of Commons that Canadians elected, the prime minister cobbled a majority together. This was only possible because of the five floor-crossers who handed Carney this power. These MPs didn’t just commit an act of disloyalty to what their constituents voted for; they facilitated a profound consolidation of power into the hands of the prime minister and backroom power brokers.  This majority commits a democratic sin far graver than what Jagmeet Singh ever managed, even with his coalition agreement with former prime minister Justin Trudeau, because a majority government has the ability to force changes to the rules, known as the standing orders, of the House of Commons — and as a result change the composition of committees.  Committees are structured based on the makeup of the House of Commons after an election, something carefully negotiated and agreed upon by all parties. For all the years the former NDP leader propped up the previous Liberal government, he at least allowed his NDP caucus to perform the constitutionally essential work of holding the government accountable at the committee level by refusing to give Liberals the majority of the seats.  Right now, most committees have five seats for the Liberals, with four for the Conservatives and one for the Bloc Québécois; the NDP and Greens, not having official party status in the House Commons, do not have an assigned seat on standing committees. The Liberals are now signalling that they plan to unilaterally rework the structure.  By securing a majority on committees, the Liberals would be weaponizing a system of accountability to silence their opponents. Committees may not get the same airtime as question period and confidence votes, but they are powerful agents of Parliament. They dictate what studies happen and which witnesses testify; they can demand documents and make amendments to legislation, among other powers. Virtually every headline about the federal government, both good and bad, from accomplishments to scandals, involves committee work at some point. Changing the makeup is a massive, unchecked shift of power away from what Canadians voted for and directly contradicts the prime minister’s lofty claims of unity and wanting to work together.  Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon, who routinely takes to the microphones in the press gallery to complain about the opposition, highlights the massive divide between what Liberal partisans say and what they do. Wasting no time making the comments on Wednesday before the new Liberal MPs elected in by-elections were even sworn in, MacKinnon told reporters that he thought it to be “pretty generally accepted” that committee composition should reflect the seats held by the parties in the House of Commons.  But the fact is this Parliament has been relatively productive. To see this you have to look past question period: opposition parties have worked with the government to pass the “Building Canada” Bill C-5, allow votes on budget items, push forward affordability and crime-fighting measures, and constructively amend Liberal bills. Now, don’t mistake these examples as there not being serious disagreement and debate, but despite a light legislative calendar and the prime minister being notably absent from House proceedings in comparison to his predecessors, he cannot claim that the opposition has stalled his agenda.  Canadians did elect the Liberals led by Mark Carney, but likewise, they elected an opposition to hold him to account. Our nation expects MPs to respect that, and committees are one of the places where that respect needs to be realized.  Despite the proclamations, it is clear that the prime minister and the Liberals don’t want a unity government; they just want to govern without scrutiny, free of any opposition. This cobbled-together majority is about more than just confidence votes; it’s about whether the balance of power remains in the hands of the people of Canada, or Liberal insiders."

Meme - Daniel Foch: "Young Canadians keep getting more miserable. Old Canadians keep getting happier. Data from world happiness report: worldhappiness.report"
"A Generational Split in Happiness in Canada
*Under 30 steadily deteriorating from 2010 to 2026*
*Age 60+ starting from the same place as under 30 in 2012 and continually rising*"
Elbows up, indeed. When you know who votes and who doesn't

The Food Professor on X - "La Presse ended my 25-year column, which I wrote for free, for saying out loud what many Canadians are thinking quietly. Subsidies given to private media are a partisan issue, fostering more editorial bias. And now, Ottawa wants to give the media another $6 billion. I’m not surprised." (aka "Censorship and the chilling impact on free speech of government media subsidies")
What a fascist, criticising the media

Meme - "Harper says Canada's difficulties can't all be blamed on Trump in gala speech"
Keep Positive And Vote Liberal: "We agree, that they can also be blamed on you and the rest of your conservative minions, who have stonewalled progress and refused cooperation for the good of the country for the last 10 years......"
"It seems that liberals just like to blame Harper or trump for all the problems they created themselves."
"explain to me how the conservatives have "stonewalled" anything. The Liberals have either had a majority or the NDP voting in step with them at every instance."
"Who was it that refused to move onto the bail reform bill 19 times before finally agreeing on the 20th request?"
Left wing cope - the party that hasn't been in power for over a decade is to blame for the mess the country is in. Of course, the moment the Liberals lose power, they cannot be responsible for anything and it'll all be on the current government

Unapologetically Albertan | Facebook - "I have a question for anyone who has voted Liberal in the past federal election. Respectfully, I’m truly trying to understand the logic behind this one, if someone would be able to politely explain it please I’d be very appreciative. More towards those who despise Trump with unbreakable conviction. Trump has said two distinct things with two very different reactions and I’m curious how to square this circle, so to say. One of them being : “…Then maybe Canada should become the 51st state.” and the second one being “…I think it’s easier to deal, actually, with a liberal and maybe they’re going to win…" Now here’s my question: why such a difference in reaction from one to the other? Trump saying we should become part of the states (jokingly or not, there isn’t any evidence of this actually happening), and it’s all “nope, never gonna happen, elbows up, hashtag Team Canada” etc. But when he says he’d prefer a Liberal government because they’re “easier to deal with” it’s all “makes sense, Trump prefers a Liberal government and so do I”. If your immediate response to anything Trump says or does is to do or think the opposite, why would you still vote Liberal, seeing as that’s what he wanted? I am not simply looking for a “gotcha moment” or trying to tear anyone down here. I’ve been trying to figure this out for some time now and I’d really appreciate some honest & respectful input from those who may think differently than I do.  I hope to open up a dialogue between people who think differently, not just to throw insults and be destructive. Disagreement doesn’t have to mean disrespect.  Thank you for reading."

Jeff Berube on X - "Here we go! The fix is in.  They’re going to use your pension money to invest in Canada’s failing state when you wouldn’t do so on your own.  The vehicle? None other than our very own sovereign debt fund.  First they got the media to push the Global Infrastructure Investment Association’s (GIIA) Pulse Survey that found “Canada to be the most attractive destination for infrastructure investment.”  Survey was off course anonymous.   But… Surprise! Surprise! the CPP Investment fund is one of the founding members of the GIIA along with our dear friends at Brookfield.  This is the next step. If anyone asks, they can justify their investment decision by pointing to the survey they fabricated themselves.  This is how they’re going to pillage the fund and rape Canadians out of their own money.  I can already hear François Philippe Champagne’s nasally voice:  “Mister Speaker. We’re standing up for Canadians. Why don’t the conservatives want to invest in Canadians?”  Absolute clown show.  If you’re an Albertan federalist, I need you to comment below and explain to me how you justify wanting to remain in this truly corrupted country."

Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 on X - "Two polls on the same day:
-Abacus - Carney is surging, and Canadians feel Canada is on the right track.
-Blacklocks leak of an internal government poll: trust in Canada's democratic institutions in a freefall.
Try to circle that square."

Dan Taylor | Facebook - "People are being told the wrong story about parole in Canada, and it keeps getting repeated like fact. There’s something off in how parole gets talked about in Canada right now. You keep hearing claims that the system is “too soft” and that it’s a recent Liberal failure. But the framework being criticized didn’t start there. It comes from the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992), passed under Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government. That legislation built the modern parole system:
It established statutory release rules
It set the structure for conditional supervision
It formalized how risk is assessed and managed
It created the framework for reintegration into the community
In other words, the system people are arguing about today is the system that was designed and implemented under a Conservative government. And it wasn’t designed to be “soft.” It was built on a correctional principle that still holds today: managed, gradual release reduces reoffending more effectively than sudden release at sentence expiry with no supervision or supports. That’s not a partisan talking point, it’s the foundation of modern corrections policy. Yes, governments of all stripes have adjusted parts of the system over time. But the core architecture hasn’t changed. The structure being criticized today is largely the one created in 1992. So if the argument is that the system needs reform, that’s fair. Say it clearly:
Longer incarceration?
Fewer releases?
Different risk thresholds?
Those are legitimate policy debates, with real consequences for public safety, prison capacity, and recidivism. But we don’t need to rewrite history to have them. The parole system Canada uses today didn’t appear out of nowhere. It was built here, decades ago, by a Conservative government."  
The chutzpah is amazing. This is even better than blaming Harper
Comment: "Sorry but this misses the point entirely of what people have major issues with. It is with the bail system and criminals offending and being released before trial. THAT is the problem we have today.  2019 (Bill C-75): This legislation was a significant modernization that encouraged a "principle of restraint" in bail, directing courts to impose the least restrictive conditions."

Federal deficit projected to soar to $92B this year: 'Unfair to pass these burdens on,' C.D. Howe Institute says - The report also forecasts deficits of more than $77 billion a year over the next four years : r/CanadianConservative - "Chrystia Freeland in December: “A 62 billion dollar deficit is too egregious, we can’t continue this fiscal mismanagement anymore.”
Freeland now: crickets"

Quebec's $129-billion equalization bonanza idiocy finally sinks in | Calgary Herald - " Quebec has received $129.9 billion in equalization payments in the past 10 years.  Even Ontario receives $576 million this year and $546 million next year; preposterous handouts to Canada’s largest economy by far.  Equalization began in 1957. Alberta has reaped not a single penny since 1965. That was the one and only payment in the past 60 years. Saskatchewan and B.C. have received no payments for 15 years.  Smith demands that the four big provinces — B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec — all receive the same per-capita payments.  She’s not saying that genuine have-not provinces should be denied, especially in Atlantic Canada.  But she points out the farce of huge payments to provinces with big, wealth-generating economies.  And now, a new Angus Reid poll shows a strikingly high level of support for Smith’s idea.  Asked if they agree with her proposal, 60 per cent said yes.  Only 19 per cent are opposed. Twenty-one per cent are unsure.  That’s remarkable. Majority support for reforming equalization is finally afoot in Canada.  Equalization was designed as a way for all provinces to provide roughly similar levels of service for their citizens.  It has become a payoff system for keeping Quebec in Canada; and for some, an irritant that could drive Alberta out. This allows successive Quebec governments to suppress development and cap resource prices, to keep the money flowing.  It’s all about fiscal capacity. Quebec has some neat tricks for keeping its own capacity artificially low.  Because of the equalization cushion, the Quebec National Assembly felt free to pass a resolution banning new oil or gas pipelines through the province.  None of this stops the insults. Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet calls Canada an “artificial country” (which is nonetheless free to supply Quebec with real western wealth). He says Alberta is a doomed petro-state.  Alberta’s referendum on removing equalization from the Constitution passed with 62 per cent in 2021.  The Trudeau Liberals had a constitutional obligation to respond, but simply ignored the vote... Newfoundland and Labrador challenged equalization in court. The case has since been joined by B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan... The poll also found 46 per cent support for ending the tanker ban off the B.C. north coast, and guaranteeing no export tax on Alberta’s resources.  On both issues, the opposition was only 35 per cent, with significant percentages undecided.  Sixty-four per cent of Canadians would back a guarantee of corridors and port access to the east and west coasts for oil and gas.  It’s quite possible that national awareness of Alberta’s grievances with Ottawa hasn’t been this high since the 1980s.  Polling was not so common in those days, but nobody could miss the uproar when Alberta reduced oil shipments to Ontario. They even noticed that in downtown Toronto."
Weird. Left wingers tell us that Alberta used to benefit from equalization, so it cannot complain about it today

Carney MPs Doly Begum and Salma Zahid pose in front of flags of the banned terror organization the Tamil Tigers : r/CanadianConservative
Too bad it only counts if you're PP leaving a trailer with the Diagolon logo on it

Canada's push to diversify trade away from U.S. seeing mixed results: report : r/Narcity - "American propoganda from an American site. Nothing to see"
"Narcity is Canadian, The original article is from The Canadian Press which is also Canadian owned.  What American site are you referring to?"
"The Canadian Press referencing a report from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce somehow is American propaganda..."
When you hate on the US and anything American to distract from your problems. Waving around outsiders as a bogeyman is a great way to pretend you haven't failed

Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 on X - "‼️CANADA JOINS EQUATORIAL GUINEA in an economic recession. Russia IS NOT even in a recession right now. Ukraine is being bombed and its not in a recession. Afghanistan is NOT in a recession."

Holly Doan on X - "New data confirms sharp generational divide between Canadians who rely on TV newscasts and those who get their news via internet. “Typical cable television subscriber in Canada is over 55” and “more likely to be satisfied with the news & information they receive than younger Canadians.”  — @CRTCeng   https://blacklocks.ca/cable-tv-audie nce-over-55/  #cdnpoli"
Older people are also more likely to support the Liberals, so.

Wayne Mathison | Facebook - "That’s the deeper problem. A healthy media culture is supposed to pressure power, question narratives, and reflect reality back to the public, even when it’s ugly. Instead, a lot of Canada’s legacy media behaves like a taxpayer-funded mood stabilizer for the managerial class. The boiled frog effect matters here. If living standards collapsed overnight, people would revolt. But if housing gets worse every year, taxes creep up every year, productivity drifts downward every year, and debt piles up quietly, many NPCs normalize decline because the screen keeps telling them everything is “stable,” “compassionate,” and “historic.” And the subsidy culture makes it worse. Once media, industries, and institutions depend on government money to survive, criticism becomes risky. You stop being a watchdog and slowly become a house pet. Not always through conspiracy either. Mostly incentives. The hand that feeds you gradually edits your worldview. That generational divide is real too. Older TV audiences often still assume the anchor is filtering information honestly. Younger people grew up online seeing competing narratives, raw footage, independent creators, leaks, long-form podcasts, and real-time corrections. Messier? Absolutely. But also harder to centrally manage. The danger is that people start mistaking narrative control for competence. But reality eventually punches through propaganda. Empty factories, unaffordable homes, weak productivity, collapsing trust, and rising dependency are hard to hide forever. Arithmetic is undefeated."

wealthmoose on X - "Well, Canada is officially in recession. That should increase Liberal support if I am understanding this country correctly."

Canada's cultural protection attempts are having the opposite effect - "  We’re deeper in the arms of America now.  And for that you can thank the people whose job it has been for half a century to keep us safe from the threat of the USA’s cultural imperialism.  The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) last month shifted the burden of sustaining the nation’s film, television, music and news industries to Donald Trump’s America.  Its May 21 decision, the latest in a series designed to implement the goals of the Online Streaming Act, demands that major companies such as Netflix and Spotify dedicate 15 per cent of their Canadian revenues to certified Canadian content, Indigenous content and broadcast newsroom subsidies. In a previous, preliminary, decision, the CRTC set the contribution level from streamers at five per cent.   While tripling down on streamers, the CRTC simultaneously decided to lower the burden on licensed domestic broadcasters to 25 per cent from between 30 to 45 per cent. Contributions by cable and satellite companies remain at five per cent of revenues.   The outcome, given the growth in streaming and declines in traditional platforms, essentially surrenders Canada’s ability to fund its primary cultural industries domestically and permanently ties the survival of the $10 billion domestic film and television industry (half of which is certified Canadian content) to levies imposed on American companies. The lowering of Canadian spending obligations for domestic production will also mean Corus, Bell, TVA and Rogers will have more freedom to spend on the acquisition of low-cost American content and there will be fewer opportunities for Canadian entertainers and sports on domestic platforms. The system won’t be entirely akin to that of a 51st state, but it will be close... The decision is certainly inconsistent with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s efforts to lessen Canada’s economic dependence on the United States and become less subordinate to it. But it is entirely in line with the goals of the 2023 Online Streaming Act which was, as former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet ministers described it, all about getting “money from web giants.”   The web giants, however, have never been real keen on that idea. A coalition of companies including Spotify, Amazon, Disney and Netflix challenged the initial five per cent decision in federal court. The outcome of that remains pending, after which another challenge regarding financial disclosure requirements may be heard.  Chief among their complaints has been the imposition of an obligation to fund Canadian newsrooms. The logic for that remains elusive given that none of the streamers — music or video — delivers news and therefore competes for news consumers... “This burdensome framework unfairly targets global streamers with requirements that directly violate Canada’s obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).  “This decision triples the cost of doing business in Canada and will spark even more inflation in the market, making further investment and innovation less attractive. For years, the MPA has consistently made clear that Canada’s Online Streaming Act is an unfair trade practice. We urge the Canadian government to reconsider this approach.”...   What was needed from the start was a 21st-Century communications act centred on the internet, with an entirely new regulator focused on opportunities. But that train has left the station and the one the government chose to ride is now a broken down wreck. Every year, we grow deeper into the arms of America."

This Week in Canada: Your Anti-Racism Is Not Anti-Racist Enough - "Canada’s long-standing “CanCon” regime—short for Canadian content—which requires broadcasters and streaming platforms to privilege content deemed sufficiently Canadian by regulators. The problem is that no one really knows what Canadian content is anymore—and that ends up hurting domestic creators at the expense of legacy broadcasters. This is yet another piece of illiberal, Trudeau-era legislation that Carney seems determined to hang on to. Read more of my reporting on the Online Streaming Act. I still stand by something else I wrote at the time. Justin Bieber, who built his career on YouTube long before regulators took an interest in curating Canadian feeds, might never have been discovered if the Online Streaming Act existed back then. Maybe that’s a good thing, depending on your taste in music."

Brian Lilley on X - "BREAKING: Carney government will reverse horrible CRTC decision to charge streamers and Canadian broadcasters for fund to make Canadian content."

Here we go again. : r/TTC - "I will never understand why this was green lit before other more needed work. The to-scale ttc map just looks ridiculous with how long line 1 has become. Why not improve the existing GO service? It 100% feels like a metrolinx/OPC vote grab for the 905"
"This has been in the works for a quarter century, and by the time it opens it will have taken over 30 years from concept to opening. Three lines and two extensions have been funded and started construction between then and now.  The TTC first studied this extension in 2001. It's been in York Region's official plan since 2002. The initial environmental assessment started in 2006, provincial funding was first promised in 2007 and it was first approved in principle by Toronto council in 2009. It's going to open in 2033. And you're complaining. LOL.  Bad takes like this are why the Toronto subway system only added five stations over a period of 35 years."
"This has been planned for regional grrowth and connection between York Region and TTC for awhile, being even Province lead during McGuinty years.  Here’s the whole environmental report on it. https://www.yrrtc.ca/PDFs/YSE/2009_ReportEnvironmentalProject.pdf  Oddly enough a Scarborough and Etobicoke of the system would be more bigger TO scale than just the Richmond Hill extension. Richmond Hill Centre is the same distance form Union is UTSC."
Building public transit is bad when conservatives do it

A Salient Example of Hajj Amin el-Husseini’s Canonical Islamic Jew-Hatred—Introduction, Text, and Commentary (3/X)

Part 1
Part 2

A Salient Example of Hajj Amin el-Husseini’s Canonical Islamic Jew-Hatred—Introduction, Text, and Commentary (3/X)

"Commentary [Ed: On Proclamation of the Grand Mufti to the Islamic World in 1937]

Just before his concluding admonition for a jihad to annihilate the Jewish community of historical Palestine, Hajj Amin el-Husseini recapitulates the dominant thematic narrative, woven together from a myriad of specific, canonical Islamic motifs, throughout the 1937 proclamation:

[T]he Arabs have learned best how they really are, that is, as they [the Jews] are described in the Koran and in the sacred scriptures… The verses from the Koran and hadith prove to you that the Jews have been the bitterest enemies of Islam and continue to try to destroy it.

El-Husseini‘s own apt summary assessment of the proclamation raises basic, important questions for those, in particular, who expound the view that his Islam was a form of modern "ideological chimerism," spatchcocked from "fundamentalist elements" of the Muslim creed, engrafted, fiendishly, to Nazism. 50 What do attentive, full tallies, comparing the numbers of Islamic and non-Islamic motifs cited by El-Husseini, demonstrate? Specifically, regarding the latter, what examples (if any), derived from Hitler‘s Mein Kampf, or the writings of Nazi racial theorists can be adduced? Do invocations of the Czarist Russian era forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, accompany, or complement these references to Nazi ideology? Is there any evidence that central themes from European Christian antisemitism are invoked, to confirm Paul Berman‘s fulmination about how "Nazified Islam" strove to demonstrate "that European and Christian superstitions ought to be regarded as authentically Middle Eastern and Islamic"?

What in fact can be readily gleaned from a careful, objective reading of el-Husseini‘s proclamation is there are no concrete, substantive references to any of these major non-Islamic sources of antisemitism. This absence of references contrasts starkly with the numerous and specific antisemitic motifs from Islam‘s canonical texts—the Koran (consistent with its gloss in authoritative Koranic commentaries), hadith, and sira—which el-Husseini‘s declaration invokes continuously, from opening to closing...

Within the first century of Islam‘s advent, this aphorism was coined, which highlighted the importance of the Sunna (and, by extension, the hadith): “The Sunna can dispense with the Koran but not the Koran with the Sunna.” The hadith compiled by al- Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875) are considered, respectively, to be the most important authoritative collections...

Sira, which can mean "epistle," "pamphlet," or "manifesto," also means "biography," "the life and times of". Ibn Ishaq of Medina (d. 767-770) composed the earliest full-length biography of Muhammad, Sirat Rasul Allah (Biography of the Prophet of Allah), nearly 150 years after the Muslim prophet‘s death...

A simple enumeration conveys el-Husseini‘s extensive use of references from Islam‘s canonical texts: ten explicit references to Koranic motifs (including eleven separate verses quoted directly in the proclamation), with an additional six implicit references; two explicit citations of the sira, and five implicit references; and two major, explicit citations (with quotation) of hadith, accompanied by three additional implicit references to the hadith literature. These citations are complemented by an explicit reference to the great early Muslim scholar al-Tabari (d. 923), and his monumental History.

How does el-Husseini‘s interpretation of the eleven Koranic verses he quotes, directly, compare with their authoritative exegeses, classical, and modern?

Maulana Muhammad Shafi (1898-1976), a former grand mufti of India (prior to the August, 1947 partition), was the author of Maariful Qur‘an, which remains the best-known work of tafsir (Koranic commentary) in Urdu. He also wrote more than three hundred books, and in addition to these literary works, broadcasted tafsir of the Koran on Radio Pakistan for a number of years. Here is Mufti Shafi‘s commentary on Koran 2:109, from Maariful Qur‘an, bearing in mind el- Husseini‘s reference to the verse as an example of the Jews‘ efforts to "discredit Muhammad‘s teachings":

Some of the Jews, pretending to be the well-wishers of the Muslims, were always inventing new stratagems to make them turn away from Islam, and, in spite of repeated failure in this effort, did not refrain from it. The verse warns the Muslims against their intentions, which are motivated, not by sincerity and friendship, but by envy—which in its turn arises not from anything the Muslims do, but spontaneously from within themselves even after they have come to understand clearly what the truth is. The verse also asks the Muslims not to give way to their justifiable anger at such misconduct, but to forgive the Jews, and wait till Allah sends a new commandment with regard to such matters. Thus, the verse gives an indication that Allah is soon going to lay down a law for the preservation of peace and order on the earth which would guide the Muslims in dealing with mischief-makers – the law, of course, being the permission to go to war against the enemies of Islam. The Muslims were actually conscious of their own weakness and the strength of their foe, and could have wondered how they would be able to act upon the new law. So, the verse reminds them that Allah's power extends over everything, small or big, ordinary or extraordinary…This command to show forbearance towards the Jews was proper to the situations of the Muslims at that time. Later on, Allah fulfilled the promise made in verse [2:]109, and sent down the injunction with regard to Jihad. Then, this new law was applied to the Jews as well as to other miscreants - in order to prevent disorder and to make peace and order prevail on the earth, Muslims went to war against them, and the mischief-makers were either killed, or forced into exile, or made to pay jizya.” [emphases added]

Two renowned classical Koranic commentators, Qurtubi (d. 1273), and Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) earlier concurred that the sentiments expressed in Koran 2:109 regarding tolerant forbearance toward the Jews, were indeed abrogated by the jihad verses in the Koran‘s "final revealed chapter," sura 9, both citing verses 9:5, and 9:29, specifically.

El-Husseini maintains that Koran 59:2 is about how "Muhammad saw himself constrained to drive the (Medinan) Jews (of the Banu Nadir tribe) out by force," for their perfidious "disbelief." His understanding of this verse comports with its classical exegesis in the seminal Tafsir al- Jalalayn, which, as the contemporary Dutch Islamologist Johannes J.G. Jansen notes in his treatise, The Interpretation of the Koran in Modern Egypt, remains one of the most popular, as well as the most authoritative Koranic commentaries in present day Egypt. Here is the gloss on Koran 59:2 from Tafsir al-Jalalayn:

"It is He who expelled those who disbelieved among the People of the Book"—meaning the Jewish clan of the Banu Nadir—"from their homes" in Medina "to the first gathering-place" on the way to Syria; the final step was when Umar [b. al-Khattab, the second "Rightly Guided" Caliph] exiled them from Khaybar when he was khalifa. "You" believers "did not think they would leave; and they thought that their fortresses would protect them from" the punishment of "Allah." "Then" the command and punishment of "Allah came upon them from where they least expected it"—from the believers, which possibility had not occurred to them—"and cast terror into their hearts" by the killing of their leader, Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf. "Their houses were pulled down by their own hands and by the hands of the believers. People of insight take note!"

... According to el-Husseini, Koran 5:49 is yet another depiction of the Jews‘ efforts to "sew dissension among Muhammad‘s followers," and even cause Muhammad to act against the Sharia, Allah‘s "divine law," in effect, apostasizing. Ibn Kathir‘s classical gloss, and the modern commentary of Maulana Muhammad (Mufti) Shafi in Maariful Qur‘an are entirely consistent this interpretation."

Links - 22nd July 2026 (1 - Hating Elon Musk: Becoming a Trillionaire)

Elizabeth Warren on X - "If Elon Musk paid my ultra-millionaire wealth tax, we could pay for child care for all three and four year olds in America."
Clown World ™ 🤡 on X - "Elon Musk’s wealth is in shares, not a checking account. Force a tax like that and he has to sell stock, the company loses value, thousands of employees lose their jobs, and the government still doesn’t get anywhere close to what you’re promising. This take is what happens when you’ve never run a business in your life."
Guy Swann on X - "• You and your friends would steal 80% of it
• you’d come in 300% over budget and still spend 3x what you taxed
• you’d start 2 useless departments that soak up billions yearly forever going forward
• the entire mess would be riddled with bribes, fraud, and fake daycares
• you’d be proposing a 2nd, 3rd, 4th and then permanent wealth tax to deal with the “gross underfunding” of your corrupt “childcare for everyone” empire.
The icing on the cake? Childcare costs in the US would increase by 40% in 2 years."
NotKennyRogers on X - "There are currently 190,000 children in Chicago living below the poverty level. For the price of the $900 million Obama library, we could have given each one of these poor children in Chicago $4,736. Am I doing this right?"
mert on X - ""ive been in office for 13 years and our yearly budget is 7 trillion but we can't help children unless we steal from the guy doing spaceflight""

mert on X - ""we couldn't do anything useful for citizens in my 14 years of office allocating 60 trillion USD. but if we can just steal from the rocket science electric car guy, then we can solve all your problems.""

wokeandwoofing on X - "If I had Elon's money I would solve world hunger instantly.😡 Sent from a device purchased with with a sum of money that could have been used to feed an Ethiopian family for a year, but wasn't, because my generosity is purely hypothetical."

Elon Musk on MacKenzie Scott giving away $26 billion of her fortune: 'sadly,' it makes the world a worse place | Fortune
Weird. Left wingers hate Elon Musk because he supposedly could've donated $6 billion to end world hunger. Yet they are good with MacKenzie Scott literally murdering people (including children) by not donating $6 billion to end world hunger (since they claim stopping USAID fraud killed 600,000 people)

Alice Smith on X - "They don’t want Elon Musk to give his trillion to the poor. They want Elon Musk to give his trillion to them so they can take their cut, split it with their comrades and causes, then look virtuous by throwing to the poor whatever scraps remain."

Renatta Oxendine on X - "Good news for those who hate billionaires: Elon Musk is no longer a billionaire."

Melissa Chen on X - "Today’s flood of Western media hit pieces and ridiculous commentary on Elon and SpaceX is yet another sign that the West is rotting from the inside.   EVEN the Chinese Communists treat their national champions with more respect than these pathetic hacks.  The CCP and its state mouthpieces aren’t half as deranged with envy. They may leash guys like Jack Ma and slap them down hard when they step out of line, but at least they’re smart enough to understand that they need their best talent and innovators to deliver prosperity for their people, dominate global markets, project raw power across the planet, and forge their nation into a ruthless superpower. The Chinese see them as vital strategic national assets and would never publicly insult or attack the ambitious, high-achieving mindset that creates these winners in the first place.  SpaceX is, without a doubt, America’s national champion.   Elon built the first reusable orbital rockets (Falcon 9), slashed launch costs, launched more missions in a single year than entire nations, revived American space dominance, sent NASA astronauts to the ISS aboard Crew Dragon, built the Starlink constellation that now beams high-speed internet to millions across the globe (including battlefields and disaster zones), and is developing Starship - the most powerful fully reusable rocket ever built, designed to make humanity an inter-planetary species.   Yet the Western press and Democratic officials are almost unanimously attacking the one man going above and beyond to secure prosperity, technological supremacy, and raw national strength for our civilization.  These people are vile soul-sucking wreckers who despise all excellence. The only thing they can produce is endless grievance and failure. All they know to do is tear down the successful, insult greatness, and wallow in their own mediocrity."

tetsuo on X - "History's first trillionaire is a guy who catches rockets out of the sky with chopsticks and beams internet to every dead zone on the planet.  Same guy ships cars that drive themselves, humanoid robots for the factory floor, brain chips that let paralyzed people move a cursor with pure thought, and an AI running on a supercomputer his team stood up in months instead of years.  And the people crashing out about his net worth are doing it on the app he owns. The same app governments spent years trying to censor.  You cannot legislate a rocket into orbit."

Bill Ackman on X - ".@BernieSanders  , it is a time to celebrate. @elonmusk  has created enormous value for society by building @SpaceX , driving down the cost of rocket launches and creating a global satellite communication network that has brought high speed, low-cost internet and communication access to hundreds of millions and eventually billions of people along with critical advantages for our military and our nation’s defense.   SpaceX and its technologies will cause an acceleration in the growth of wages and wealth creation globally, including in some of the poorest communities in the U.S. and around the world.   Access to low-cost, high speed communications everywhere will allow children around the world to be educated, families to build businesses, and life-saving medical knowledge and care to be available everywhere.   SpaceX will materially bring down the cost of compute, advancing AI and humanity.   Meanwhile, 4,000 SpaceX employees yesterday became millionaires, including hourly wage employees who you claim you are trying to help.   The Elon Musks of the world drive growth, global GDP, and provide access to goods and services at lower cost that would otherwise not exist.   Elon’s nominal trillionaire status is due to his ownership of SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, the Boring Company and his other initiatives that have brought new technologies that improve our everyday lives.   Elon is not sitting on a trillion dollar pile of cash, jewelry and gold. He is using his controlling stakes in his companies to advance mankind. Elon’s companies don’t pay dividends. They reinvest all of their capital to accelerate innovation and value creation.    Elon is working 24/7 for all of us. He deserves respect and appreciation, not smears.   Bernie, your socialism would never allow a SpaceX to be built. Socialism has only proven to impoverish mankind and lead to death and destruction.   We need to create the conditions for more SpaceXs to be built, not attack the great entrepreneurs who are helping to advance our country."

Crime In NYC on X - "Elon Musk's contribution to the national economy:
Over 2021–2025, Musk's companies (Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, Neuralink, The Boring Company) reportedly injected ~$338 billion directly into the U.S. economy via:
• $110.7 billion in wages/salaries (supporting • 200,000+ employees at competitive pay).
• ~$46 billion in taxes (corporate, payroll, etc.).
• $182 billion+ in supplier spending (e.g., Tesla alone spent heavily on U.S. batteries, chips, steel).
Source: https://odaily.news/en/post/5207545
- - - -
- During his lifetime, Bernie Sanders has contributed approximately $0.00 to the national economy."
Bernie's contribution is negative, actually

David Knight Legg on X - "Globe & Mail reporter Chris Gay told Canadian readers ‘how to properly hate’ @elonmusk for becoming a trillionaire via SpaceX. Here’s an idea:
- Maybe Mr Gay could explain to readers why Canadas fed govt lost $50bn betting against Tesla on EVs - and is in the process of losing billions more backing no-launch capacity Telesat to compete with StarLink - SpaceX.    Our federal govt is lighting on fire billions we don’t have betting against a guy changing the lives of millions with reusable rockets, global internet, EVs, nueralink, boring company etc.   Capitalism creates wealth as markets embrace life-improving goods and services.  Which is why our teachers will get an $11bn windfall via their pension betting with Musk.   Socialism destroys it through the politics of envy and statist central planning and loss-making ‘investments’ which is why this federal govt is so awful at capital allocation.   @globeandmail  - pls tell the whole story."
Left wingers will still claim the Globe and Mail is "centre-right" and that Carney is "conservative" (because he's not destroying the economy as fast as Trudeau was)

Melissa Chen on X - "These are the exact same people who made “countering hate” their entire identity.  They were the first to plant “Hate Has No Place Here” signs on their lawns.  They insist “hate speech isn’t free speech.”  They proudly fund groups like Hope Not Hate and Stop AAPI Hate  They still chant “Love Trumps Hate” like it’s scripture.  Yet here they are, in the pages of The Globe and Mail, publishing a guide on “how to properly hate” Elon Musk for the crime of building SpaceX into a company that could make him the world’s first trillionaire.  Proof positive that their “anti-hate” crusade was never about hate.  They are, in reality, full of hate. It was always about who they’re allowed to hate"

David Yelland on X - "What has Elon Musk taken from you? So ask many including Andrew Neil. Here's the answer: He has taken our peace of mind. He has purposefully pushed us apart, divided us further and profited from our loss of community. And that is hard to ever forgive."
Left wingers - the party of "coexist", "love" and "empathy" - are seething with hatred and envy

Melissa Chen on X - "lol these people need to grow up.   They don’t build. They don’t create. They just sit on their asses, consume, complain, and then have the audacity to claim someone like Elon “took their peace of mind.”  Bro, your peace of mind was never real. It was a curated illusion maintained by gatekeepers who banned dissent, shadowbanned wrongthink, and lied through their teeth for years. The second the feed stopped being a safe little bubble where your opinions were treated like gospel, you all lost your minds.  You say Elon “divided us.” No, he just stopped letting you pretend the divisions didn’t exist while you censored the other half of the country into silence. I suppose I shouldn’t expect someone who works for the BBC to acknowledge this.   Low-agency people don’t have an internal engine. Their entire emotional state is outsourced to external conditions.   If the world doesn’t validate their feelings 24/7, if someone dares to speak freely, if reality doesn’t bend to their narrative, they collapse into petulant toddler mode:  “Waaah, HE destroyed my inner peace!”   I’m sorry, does the universe owe you inner peace? Or is it an internal state that you achieve when you stop being a reactive little bitch and start taking responsibility for your own life?  That’s the fundamental split.   High-agency people look at problems and say “how do I fix this or beat it?”   Low-agency people look at problems and say “who’s responsible for making me feel this way so I can cancel them?”   One group moves the world forward while the other just seethes, copes, and demands the rest of us accommodate their fragility.  The leftist mindset is more or less synonymous with low-agency. The problem with media historically is that there are many of them working as journalists."

Kat on X - "People want to hate on Elon because he shows you what's possible. Your excuse that it's too difficult to create is out the window. Do 1 millionth of what Elon does and you'll be considered successful."

Meme - Melissa Chen @MsMelChen: "It's true that large pools of capital can have distortionary effects on markets and democracy. But until leftists can show they've criticized Soros or Singham for it, nobody should buy their anti-oligarch virtue signal. Where are the receipts? Yeah, thought so"
"No results for roy singham neville No results for soros from:lewis_goodall"
Lewis Goodall: "Musk as a trillionaire- anyone as a trillionaire- is a grotesque economic, moral and political problem. We cannot have individuals with that level of power, whatever they might have achieved."

Threads - "I’m so confused as to how Elon Musk is the first trillionaire when he MADE UP the valuation for SpaceX. He pulled it out of his ass. If he sells the company, he won’t get a trillion dollars because no one has a trillion dollars. Including him."
Left wingers don't understand anything. That's why they're poor

Eric Lombardi (EricForOLP.ca) 🇨🇦🚀 on X - "Can I just point out how funny this is, given the paper is owned by Canada’s wealthiest billionaire family, all of whom inherited their wealth. Should we hate them for that? Of course not, because that would be gross. But, it reflects our tall-poppy syndrome at its finest. Personally, I’m glad that the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan is getting a nice payout, as will many others who took a big risk investing in SpaceX.   I wish we had more audacious entrepreneurs making big bets and generating great jobs and wealth here in Ontario. I want to create an environment that makes it even more likely.  The world is not zero sum. The size of the pie is not fixed. If we make more, everyone can get a big piece."
Bruce Arthur on X - "Were I running for a political leadership position in Canada I would simply not simp for Elon Musk, who is responsible for an incredible number of deaths, and is currently encouraging race riots in Ireland"
Eric Lombardi (EricForOLP.ca) 🇨🇦🚀 on X - "What did I say that you actually disagree with? As you just pointed out there are plenty of other reasons to dislike Musk. We have an incumbent “intellectual” class that eschews debate, thinking, and nuance, and thinks politics is healthy when leaders do the same."
Bruce Arthur on X - "Beyond the implicit moral shallowness, it’s not good for anyone to be worth a trillion dollars, much less someone as monstrous as Musk, even before you get into the boring rot of trickle-down economics"
Eric Lombardi (EricForOLP.ca) 🇨🇦🚀 on X - "There is nothing implicitly or explicitly morally shallow about this.  Bruce, what is the right level of cutoff for the level of wealth that someone should be able to create? What is the right level to inherit? Why?   To me, a competitive entrepreneurial economy with risk taking creates wealth but also interesting work for people, which also means opportunity that we wouldn’t have had before.   My concern, in government, is to tax that fairly to provide a level of welfare befitting of an advanced and prosperous society that sees value in every individual.   This is the promise of a liberal economy. And that to me allows us the luxury to be morally and ethically good."
Bruce Arthur on X - "Not shallow, huh"
Eric Lombardi (EricForOLP.ca) 🇨🇦🚀 on X - "You really don’t want to engage on the question eh?"
Bruce Arthur on X - "Just tag the Shopify guys next time, they might get excited"
Left wingers can't answer the question, because really the criteria for someone being too rich is to be richer than them and on the wrong side

Jonathan Kay on X - "Watching this guy flounder around when he gets called out on his inanities is hilarious"
Doug Jordan on X - "Absolutely deplorable performance for a journalist. But this is what we’ve come to expect of the Toronto Star."

Henrick Johansson on X - "Elon Musk is about to become a trillionaire.  If he agreed to pay just 80% of that as a wealth tax to the EU, the EU government could use its efficient operating experience to fund bicycles with solar panels attached to them for over 40 residents of the Netherlands.  Elon is being selfish by not paying the wealth tax"

Shruti on X - "Elon just created 4,400 millionaires in a single day.  400 of them are now worth over $100 million.  These aren't VCs. They're SpaceX employees, and the list includes welders, technicians, and cafeteria staff, because for two decades the company paid every level of the workforce in stock instead of higher salaries.  Juan Hernandez immigrated from Mexico and took a $28 an hour contractor welding job in 2015. He says he didn't even know what SpaceX was. The company gave him a $10,000 equity grant and let him buy more shares through payroll deductions. That stake is now worth $880,000.  Trevor Hise's parents wanted him to take a stable job at General Electric. He picked SpaceX instead, stayed 12 years, and accumulated over 100,000 shares. At the $135 listing price that's $13.5 million. He's 37 and semiretired. His words: "The magnitude of this has been ridiculous."  The most telling detail came before the listing. Over 100 employees quietly banded together and negotiated a group wealth management deal covering up to $5 billion, because none of them had ever needed a wealth manager before.  Software IPOs have minted millionaires for 30 years. This is the first one where the money went to the factory floor."

Aakash Gupta on X - "Google's IPO created roughly 1,000 millionaires. Facebook's did about the same. SpaceX just created 4,400, with 400 of them above $100 million each.  The structural reason matters more than the feel-good stories.  Companies that stay private for decades usually concentrate the upside in VCs and founders. By the time regular employees get liquid, the 100x already happened on someone else's cap table. SpaceX stayed private for 24 years, the longest run to a mega IPO in history, and routed that compounding into payroll. Stock grants at every level, plus share purchases through paycheck deductions, down to welders and cafeteria staff.  Run the math on what that meant. SpaceX was valued around $12 billion in early 2015. The IPO priced it at $1.77 trillion. That's 147x in 11 years, roughly 57% annualized. A welder buying shares with $200 paycheck deductions compounded at a rate most funds never touch once.  The part people gloss over: this was financing, and the workforce carried real risk. In 2008 the company was weeks from bankruptcy after three failed Falcon 1 launches. Below-market salary plus rocket startup equity was a terrible deal in every timeline where the rockets kept blowing up. For two decades the employees were, collectively, one of SpaceX's largest investors.  Thousands of startups pay in equity. Almost all of that paper expires worthless. This bet only paid because the company survived 24 years, landed the rockets, and went public at the largest valuation in IPO history.  4,400 people just got paid for holding through every one of those filters. The factory floor was the venture capital."

Links - 21st July 2026 (2 - Left Wing Economics)

Dan Neidle on X - "Thomas Piketty and a large team have just proposed a worldwide tax & economic revolution:
⦿ Cap rich-nation growth near zero
⦿ Cut work hours in half
⦿ Cut material consumption by 1/3
⦿ 10% of GDP going into a global fund
⦿ Tax wealth to essentially end it
It's potty."
Left wingers hate economic growth. If people's lives are getting better, they won't be interested in Revolution

Thomas Piketty's diabolical plan to impoverish every country on Earth | National Post - "Celebrity economist Thomas Piketty won fame with a claim that, in market economies, capital accumulates in the hands of the already wealthy, leading to increased inequality. The message found a receptive audience among people eager to believe economic success isn’t earned. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney cited Piketty in his own 2021 book-length argument that economic activity should be managed by people like Carney.  And now Piketty is back seeking new fans with a scheme for top-down central planning of the world’s economy. He is the co-director of the new Global Justice Report from the World Inequality Lab. Introducing the project, Piketty posted on X, “The world today is characterized by large-scale inequalities. And a climate crisis is looming over us. We urgently need a new vision for global progress in the 21st Century. One that grounds human development and equality in planetary habitability.”  Piketty shoehorns an impressive number of buzz phrases into a few lines. He includes concerns about equality and inequality, climate change and progress that should send thrills through college campuses. But Piketty has a talent for tapping into the moment. In this case, at a time when Freedom House’s annual report finds that “Global freedom declined for the 20th consecutive year in 2025,” the economist and his colleagues propose authoritarian policies for shaping the entire planet to their liking.  In his post, Piketty asks, “What would it take to achieve high prosperity and equality while remaining within planetary boundaries?” He answers that “energy transition” (meaning moving away from power sources that produce carbon) is necessary, as well as “labour hour reductions, growth caps in rich countries, less material consumption, and changes in food habits.”  The report itself asserts, “The compression of global inequality is not only compatible with deep decarbonization; it is a necessary condition for shared prosperity on a finite planet.”  To fight climate change and battle inequality, Piketty and company want “full income convergence across countries by 2100.” This requires, in part, limiting growth to “around 0-0.5% in today’s richest regions (North America/Oceania, Europe).” They argue that near-zero growth in rich countries “does not mean that their living standards stagnate” because people will benefit from flattened incomes.  “Accounting for the value of additional leisure time and the avoided costs of climate damage relative to high-growth and high-warming scenarios, even today’s richest countries will enjoy a substantial rise in comprehensive well-being indicators,” they conclude.  In other words, people will learn to like what Piketty and company think they should like.  Restricting economic growth in developed countries would require an enormous amount of government intervention, but the report isn’t shy about calling for just that. It proposes limiting the power of individual shareholders in companies with more than 100 employees. “In the event such a system were in place, it is unclear whether this should still be described as ‘private property,’ ” they concede. “Our own preference would be to move as far as possible towards worker-managed organizations and participatory governance, within a broader process of decommodifying the economy.” We’ll also be forced to produce and eat much less meat.  Not that people would have much money for beef or corporate shares. The authors insist that a “global wealth tax on top wealth holders is crucial for kickstarting the sustainable growth path envisaged by the Global Justice Platform.” The wealth tax would apply to all assets, including housing. It would be set so high that top earners would find that “the only way to pay the tax will be to sell assets” which will inevitably reduce their wealth year by year. It would also, incidentally, discourage investment and innovation, but that’s compatible with the authors’ desire to discourage economic growth in developed countries.  The wealth tax would be in addition to a global income tax operating “alongside national tax systems.” For top earners, “the effective tax rate is stable at 90%.” Not many people might be left at higher rates, though, if the report’s proposals for salary scales and other tools for “income convergence” are implemented.  Piketty and company concede that their plan is likely to be met with “significant political resistance.” They hope to address this with cultural changes in “the value we place on sufficiency, free time and planetary habitability themselves, and the end of ‘classless ecology.’ ”  If this sounds unlikely to convince free and prosperous people that they should hobble their lives to promote the Global Justice Platform, the authors consider that likelihood, too. The report contemplates some countries — specifically the U.S. and China — refusing to co-operate. They suggest imposing “adequate sanctions to non-participants, in proportion to the damages they impose on participating countries.” The recommended sanctions are substantial enough to constitute economic warfare.  The Global Justice Report’s proposed centralization of world political and economic power with penalties for those who opt out are so draconian that they require significant justification. So, it’s worth pointing out that the “climate crisis” the plan seeks to avert assumes “expected temperature rise of 4.8 C to 4.9 C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.” But climate scientists recently ditched that scenario as implausible and now expect much less dire outcomes.  Piketty’s proposals make the unchallenged assumption that income inequality is inherently bad. But Hoover Institution economist David R. Henderson argues that “Most of what is framed as a problem of inequality is better conceived as either a problem of poverty or a problem of unjustly acquired wealth.” Capping economic growth, he adds, hurts lower-income people more than it harms the wealthy.  Worse, in the American Institute for Economic Research journal, Phil Magness and Vincent Geloso wrote that Piketty’s work on income inequality contained “multiple accounting errors, data discrepancies, and even historical mistakes in how they dealt with changes to the tax code.”  Concluding a review of Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, economist Deirdre McCloskey wrote: “His social theme is a narrow ethic of envy. His politics assumes that governments can do anything they propose to do. And his economics is flawed from start to finish.”  Thomas Piketty and his colleagues want to change the world to suit their preferences. It’s unlikely that many of us would enjoy the transformation, and there’s no reason to let them make the attempt."
The left wing agenda always involves bigger and more powerful government, because they want more power and control. But if you oppose this, you support "fascism"

Richard Hanania on X - "Piketty, Stiglitz, and many other left-wing economists are literal degrowthers. They want you to be poorer. This used to be an extreme exaggeration about the left. "They want you to be poor." It's never been true. Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Mao, FDR, whoever you wanted to call the left, no matter how misguided they were, they traditionally wanted people to be wealthier.   Even if they're not advocating mass killing, there's something uniquely evil about this, because the ultimate goal is to make people worse off."

Slazac 🇪🇺🇺🇦🇹🇼🌐 on X - "Nothing will make you lose faith in leftism more than arguing about rent control They simply refuse to learn about the consequences of the policies they support, they can’t conceive second order effects"
Chris 🇺🇲💦🍑 on X - "I don't intend this as a slight to my lefty friends, but it obviously is: more than any other ideology, they have an incuriousness about what the economy is or how it functions. Which is rich considering Marx's magnum opus was a book on economics!"
Richard Hanania on X - "This is all of economic leftism! Nearly all their preferred policies create second order effects that are bad. Rent control is just one of the most obvious examples. But the whole thing is rotten."

Common Sense Extremists on X - "Person 1: works 90 hour week running an international company that employs millions
Person 2: works 25 hour week putting fries in a cup
Leftist: it’s a moral crime that these two don’t earn the same"

Disabled workers paid just pennies an hour – and it's legal - "One of the nation's best-known charities is paying disabled workers as little as 22 cents an hour, thanks to a 75-year-old legal loophole that critics say needs to be closed.Goodwill Industries, a multibillion-dollar company whose executives make six-figure salaries, is among the nonprofit groups permitted to pay thousands of disabled workers far less than minimum wage"
Ironic. Left wingers love non-profits and hate "slave labour" (i.e. voluntary prison labour)

Meme - "2 Thessalonians 3:10 and the 1936 Soviet Constitution both agree. So if Saint Paul and Vladimir Lenin agree, and the same principle built America maybe it's a universally good idea. We should try it in the United States.
ARTICLE 12 In the U.S.S.R. work is the obligation and a matter of honour of every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: ''He who does not work, neither shall he eat.'' In the the principle of socialism is realised: ''From each according to his ability, to each according to the work performed."'"
Time to condemn Christians who don't want unlimited welfare for people who don't want to work as not true Christians who have no idea what Christianity is about

Matthew Yglesias on X - "A Nordic-style tax structure would tax the rich much more heavily than the United States but also define “the rich” much more broadly."
Chris Pope on X - "Denmark actually raises slightly *less* in revenue from the rich than the United States, but substantially *more* from those with low incomes. See "The American Way of Welfare", p117-18:"

Gavin Newsom on X - "It's time for a national billionaires tax and a new social contract.  10% of Americans own two-thirds of the wealth. Wages have stagnated. The cost of living has skyrocketed.   The system is fundamentally broken.  The federal tax code, a corporate code, and an inheritance code were written for a different set of Americans.   It’s time for an economic reset.  http://substack.com/@gavinnewsom"
Peachy Keenan on X - ""an inheritance code"  Look out - Gavin is planning to abolish the step-up in basis inheritance rule that allows you to inherit a parent's house without being forced to sell and give him all your money.  All that boomer housing equity is about to be clawed out from under you by these communist dipshits"

Robert Sterling on X - "Three things:
1. “It’s time for an economic reset” is the most terrifying thing I’ve ever heard an American politician say. If you don’t get what those words portend, you don’t understand 20th century history.
2. Among Democrats, Newsom is considered a moderate, not a progressive. His endorsement of a wealth tax makes it an official part of the Democratic Party platform for moderates and progressives alike; the policy is now table stakes for any Democrat seeking office at any level and in any region. We are no longer going to be able to escape this by simply claiming it’s the fringe left advocating for it.
 3. Notice that Newsom calls it a “billionaires tax” but references the wealth of the top 10%. If you think a tax such as this would be limited to billionaires, you are delusional (remember that the income tax originally applied to less than 1% of earners). Billionaires have an entire industry of wealth managers, lawyers, and tax advisors helping them shelter assets. When this “billionaires tax” fails to collect even a small percentage of what Democrats promise it will, they will quickly expand it to apply to anyone with even $5M of assets (which is a top 2% net worth). Ordinary people far below the level of the ultra-wealthy—main street small business owners, mom-and-pop real estate investors, farmers, anyone with a decent-size nest egg in their IRA or 401k account—will quickly feel the pain as well.
Pay attention. This is serious, it’s not going away, and it’s going to come for all of us, billionaire or not."

The Fall of the House of Obama - "the Democratic Party’s mindset and actions reflect a troubling reliance on government overreach, radical social policies, and financial manipulation, which have eroded its legitimacy in the United States, the world’s freest nation. The party’s decline is no accident; it is the inevitable result of dismantling the bloated infrastructure that has propped it up for decades. The defunding of questionable agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the reduction of bureaucratic excess, the elimination of ideologically driven programs like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and the exposure of mainstream media as a propaganda tool have stripped away the party’s veneer of public support. I believe these developments reveal a party that has thrived not on genuine popular backing but on a carefully orchestrated system of coercion, financial largesse, and ideological control. I contend that the Democrats have imposed radical social policies through coercive tactics, forcing Americans to comply with agendas that lack broad appeal. These policies, often cloaked in the language of progress or inclusivity, are, in my opinion, disconnected from the needs and values of most citizens. Rather than persuading the public through open debate, the party has relied on institutional power - government agencies, corporate allies, and media narratives - to enforce compliance and silence opposition. This approach, to me, betrays a lack of confidence in the merit of their ideas and a preference for control over consensus. Financially, I see the Democratic Party as a beneficiary of a self-serving system that misuses taxpayer money. The party has, in my view, treated public funds like a personal piggy bank, doling out grants and “forgivable” loans to loyal groups - activist organizations, NGOs, and allied industries - with reckless abandon. I believe much of this money circles back to the party through opaque channels, enriching its leaders while burdening ordinary Americans. Similarly, the party’s lavish spending on foreign aid and international programs strikes me as a scheme to buy influence abroad, with benefits quietly funneled back to Democratic elites. This financial entanglement suggests to me that the party operates not as a servant of the people but as a parasitic entity dependent on public resources.  In my opinion, the Democratic Party is defined by its symbiotic relationship with an overgrown government. It is a party, as I see it, “by the government, of the government, and for the government,” sustained by billions in taxpayer dollars over more than half a century. Its ideology thrives only within this artificial ecosystem, propped up by bureaucrats, activists, and media allies. When government spending is cut or programs are eliminated, the party’s infrastructure crumbles, exposing its lack of organic support. I believe the American people have been unwittingly funding this system for too long, and their growing awareness is driving a reckoning. The Democratic Party’s decline, in my view, is the natural consequence of its dependence on a government it has manipulated to serve its own ends, and its wounds are self-inflicted when that government is finally restrained. The American people have been funding the Democrat party for over half a century.  When you cut government, the Democrat party bleeds.  They are one and the same."

New York Post on X - "Meet the billionaire power couple advocating 'communism for landlords' and a global welfare state - from their $30M Hamptons McMansion"
Hon. Vickie Paladino on X - "These are the billionaires who are actually oppressing us. The ones who sit in their mansions and write checks to communist NGOs and the DSA, who then use that money to destroy our public safety and quality of life. This is the real enemy of the people."
So, since left wingers claim to hate billionaires and that they shouldn't exist...

Matthew Yglesias on X - "There’s been an interesting trajectory since Bernie’s 2015 era pitch that “democratic socialism” meant “policy like Denmark” to the current situation where left policy proposals look nothing like actual Danish tax policy."
Clearly, there is no left wing party in the US

dan on X - "The concept of private land is actually insane if you consider it for even a moment"
RAW EGG NATIONALIST on X - "I still laugh from time to time about a seminar I attended at Cambridge where anthropologists and moral philosophers were talking about morality in cross-cultural perspective and the subject of private property came up. After various know-it-alls suggested there was no deep basis for private property ("cultural construction"), an ethologist piped up, "Have you ever tried to take a banana from a gorilla?" and there was just dead silence for about a minute and then everyone pretended nothing had happened and just continued as they had been."
RJ Frazer on X - "The usual response from lefties is to start splitting hairs about "private property" and "personal property". No-one has yet explained to me why the leftist's new iPhone is personal property which he is allowed to keep but my house is "private property" which must be confiscated."

Reverend Jordan Wells on X - "🚨 DC Just Voted for Socialism — And It’s Spreading Fast 🚨  Janeese Lewis George — an avowed socialist and proud Democratic Socialists of America member — just cruised to a commanding lead in Washington D.C.’s Democratic primary. She’s now all but guaranteed to become the next mayor of the nation’s capital.  This isn’t some outlier. Socialists already run the mayor’s offices in New York, Chicago, and Seattle. They’re on the verge of taking Los Angeles and Washington D.C. too. The Democratic Party has officially become the party of socialism. America, are we really okay with this? #Socialism #DCPrimary #DemocraticSocialists #WakeUpAmerica #BigCitiesFail #Election2026 #RadicalLeft #AmericaFirst #StopTheSocialistTakeover"

Alice Smith on X - "The socialist view of economics is based on a mixture of DuckTales and Monopoly."

The Aristocrats of Redistribution - "For me, the contradiction of the wealthy progressive is one of the strangest and most revealing phenomena in modern politics. It is a movement increasingly populated by people who denounce wealth while enjoying it, condemn privilege while benefiting from it, and romanticize collectivism while carefully insulating themselves from its consequences. The rich progressive is no longer an outlier on the modern Left. In many ways, he has become its defining symbol.  Examples are constant. Millionaires publicly demanding “higher taxes on the rich” while employing armies of accountants to ensure they surrender no more than absolutely necessary. Celebrities preaching climate austerity while crossing oceans on private jets to attend conferences about reducing carbon footprints. Affluent activists proclaiming solidarity with “the oppressed” while living in neighborhoods protected from the very social disorder their policies encourage. Increasingly, the children of privilege — people raised with wealth, access, influence, and safety — attach themselves to radical redistributive causes they themselves never seem willing to experience personally. The paradox is impossible to ignore. If capitalism is fundamentally exploitative, if wealth itself is evidence of injustice, and if privilege is inherently immoral, then why do so many wealthy progressives continue to enjoy every benefit of the system they condemn? Why do they advocate redistribution while rarely redistributing their own wealth voluntarily? Why do they champion collectivism while maintaining lifestyles that would be impossible under the systems they romanticize?  The answer is that most of them do not actually believe collectivism will ever apply to them... Every supposedly egalitarian revolution eventually creates a hierarchy because human nature refuses to disappear simply because slogans demand it. Yet modern wealthy progressives behave as though they would somehow remain among the protected class inside the utopia they advocate.  Figures like Hasan Piker and Zohran Mamdani illustrate the phenomenon well. Both emerged from environments of significant privilege and access — neither from the industrial labor background that traditional Marxist rhetoric glorifies. Both found their audiences inside affluent activist culture, where ideological performance carries more social value than tangible productive achievement. That distinction matters because modern progressive activism increasingly resembles social theater more than material struggle. It functions as a moral performance through which affluent people demonstrate virtue and ideological purity. The cause itself often becomes secondary to the identity the cause provides.  That is why so few ever meaningfully divest themselves of their own wealth. They advocate redistribution in theory while maintaining every practical protection capitalism affords them in reality. They denounce “late-stage capitalism” from luxury apartments, monetize anti-capitalist rhetoric on corporate-owned platforms, and build profitable careers criticizing the very system responsible for their influence. This is not hypocrisy in the ordinary sense. It is structural hypocrisy — the contradiction built directly into the worldview itself. The middle class often recognizes this instinctively. Middle-class people live closest to practical reality: they build businesses, pay mortgages, balance budgets, and absorb the direct consequences of economic decisions. They cannot afford to live entirely inside ideology because practical life punishes fantasy quickly. The lower class, meanwhile, can understandably become susceptible to collectivist promises because economic insecurity breeds desperation. That has always been the emotional engine behind collectivist politics. The wealthy progressive occupies an entirely different psychological category. While he rarely exhibits empathy, he is often driven by a mixture of guilt, boredom, narcissism, and existential emptiness. Material comfort alone rarely provides meaning. For affluent progressives raised without genuine hardship, radical politics becomes a substitute for earned purpose. Revolutionary rhetoric offers emotional intensity without requiring actual revolutionary sacrifice and it eventually becomes a form of aristocratic cosplay. That helps explain why so many affluent activists appear simultaneously angry and insulated. They rebel against systems from which they enormously benefit, but only within carefully controlled boundaries that never truly threaten their own status. They rarely advocate universal sacrifice. Instead, they advocate managed sacrifice imposed upon an abstract class of “others.” Higher taxes for “the rich” never seem to involve liquidating Hollywood fortunes, surrendering inherited wealth, or voluntarily abandoning luxury lifestyles. The sacrifices remain theoretical until they become personal. That is the central truth behind the paradox of the rich progressive. They do not believe the revolution applies equally to everyone... History suggests otherwise.  Collectivist revolutions rarely spare the privileged allies who helped legitimize them. Useful idealists are often among the first casualties once power consolidates, because ideological movements eventually devour anyone insufficiently pure or no longer useful. Yet modern wealthy progressives largely ignore that lesson because their politics are less historical than emotional. What many of them seek is not equality at all. What they seek is moral absolution and social status disguised as compassion.  The contradiction persists because progressivism, for many affluent advocates, is not a movement or a survival strategy, it is just a luxury belief."
The cope is the "we should improve society somewhat" meme

Maarten Boudry on X - "Remember when leftists still embraced material abundance and unlimited growth? I wonder what happened in the intervening years.   "Only two generations ago, intelligent people in the West actually believed Nikita Khrushchev’s “we will bury you” boast—that the communist working class would overawe the free-market world economically by outproducing the West.""

Meme - Michael A. Arouet: "France has higher public spending as % of GDP than the Soviet Union, and now they seriously demand new taxes at the EU level to finance their absurd public spending? Germans were just told that they need to work much longer before retiring, why should the French retire so early?"
"France is not a real country
PUBLIC SPENDING AS % OF GDP (2024). A Comparative Analysis
Vietnam 20.0%
China 33.0%
USA 37.6%
EU (excl. France) 47.7%
USSR (1990) 50.6%
France 57.2%"
Left wingers won't be satisfied till it gets to 100%, then they will go hunting for kulaks sabotaging the Revolution, because first they came for the billionaires...

Same ethnicity, different realities: A Chinese experience in Singapore

Technically Singaporean Chinese and China Chinese have different ethnicities, so the word should've been "race". The original Mandarin title is somewhat different: "碰撞与融入" (collision and integration).

Same ethnicity, different realities: A Chinese experience in Singapore

"In contemporary movies and novels, Singapore is often portrayed as a distant destination where Chinese people go primarily to seek financial opportunities...

Over the past year or two, following the pandemic, Singapore has gained more prominence. Once more, a trend of “going south to Nanyang (Southeast Asia)” is stirring among the Chinese. 

To Europeans and Americans, Singapore is the easiest country for them to live in Asia, as nearly everyone in Singapore speaks English; and given that 75% of its population is ethnic Chinese, Singapore is also the easiest foreign country for the Chinese to live in. Perhaps the biggest issue that people from China living in Singapore would have to tackle is how to overcome “boredom”.

On the surface, working in Singapore resembles a Western “society of strangers”, where any two people with name cards and business needs can easily collaborate. The city-state is highly cosmopolitan and welcoming to foreigners, with a government that is approachable, business-minded and supportive of foreign organisations.

On the other hand, Singapore is a “society of familiar people”, as tiny as it gets. In Singapore, what one says and does — good or bad — easily spreads through social circles, or even the entire country. Keeping one’s nose clean and maintaining one’s reputation is crucial for working or running a business.

This reflects a local, grassroots-based society, with its own relatively isolated circle where people tend to interact with those they know. Social principles and behavioural norms here are different from those in a modern urban society made up of strangers.

A newcomer from China might find Singapore’s business environment surprisingly straightforward, even primitive. The way Singaporeans do business can seem clunky, without any fancy marketing or operations; Singaporeans are simple and direct in dealing with people. An article in Lianhe Zaobao in early 2024 highlighted an international survey revealing that Singaporeans top the global list for the total amount lost to scams, indicating that they are among the easiest targets for fraud.

Given the absence of a language barrier, many Chinese newcomers arrive in Singapore with high expectations, anticipating rapid success in capturing market share and attracting customers. However, they soon discover that, despite the straightforward business environment, failing to integrate into local social networks, adhere to local customs and earn the trust of Singaporeans can hinder their ability to adjust and grow their business. Singapore operates with a kind of “autoimmunity” to aggressive or unconventional business tactics; locals are resistant to radical approaches.

Because the government offers much welfare and protection — especially in affordability of buying homes and protection of job opportunities for locals — Singaporeans do not face as much pressure at work, in stark contrast with the “involution” the people in China face at work now.

Involution is a term that has gained popularity in recent years in China, referring to man-made factors that create and increase stress. In Singapore, the trend is the antonym: chill. At a business event shortly after I came to Singapore, I heard managers from Alibaba say that their intense “996” work culture quickly “became defunct” soon after they were posted to Singapore. 

Many Chinese firms see Singaporean employees as difficult to manage — “quick to resign once there is any disagreement”, because they are not at all worried about finding the next job. Singaporean employees usually have all sorts of leave; even before they join a company, they ask to work from home two days per week to take care of their children. So, there is a strong clash between the anxiety of the Chinese and Singaporeans’ chill.   　

Yet for the Chinese entrepreneurs coming to Nanyang, there is a strong drive to export their own business practices and challenge Singapore’s more relaxed working pace, even if it is not as intense as the 996 work culture. They often introduce tactics such as aggressive promotions, price wars, loyalty programmes, and gaining customers through traffic. You can easily tell if the head of a business is Chinese from the way they operate.

Besides business culture, in the past year, the card game guandan (掼蛋) has spread among Chinese residents in Singapore even more rapidly than the coronavirus, with long-term residents deeply engaged in what can be called “guandan diplomacy”...

Many recent arrivals from China in Singapore have ample free time, creating a perfect environment for guandan to thrive. The game provides an easy way to bond, bypassing the potential awkwardness of small talk.

However, because of their background and the obstacles to cultural exchanges, the influence of people from China in Singapore remains largely confined to their own circle. Even people from China who have been in Singapore for ten to 20 years and are naturalised still only mingle among their own circle. Perhaps the biggest influence the Chinese have on Singapore would be the use of social media and shopping apps such as TikTok and Lazada.

One can work and do business with Singaporeans, but cultural differences often hinder the development of deeper personal relationships, such as friendships where one might invite others out and spend time together. While Mandarin is not a barrier, the underlying thought processes and mentalities are quite different.

About six months after I came to Singapore, I was asked to give my take on Singaporean men. Without much thought, I responded that Singaporean men are just like Singapore: neither exceptionally good nor bad. Simply put — unexciting. When a foreigner like me says this in front of Singaporean men, they all laugh heartily without denying it. Yes, we are a bit boring, and good-tempered to a fault.

Just as we see Singaporeans as unexciting or even boring, they probably have their own opinion of us Chinese from abroad. But Singapore has long gotten used to cultural tolerance; you would never see a Singaporean openly criticise the influx of foreigners too much. They are willing to interact with you, observe you, and then decide whether or not to do business with you. 

On the one hand, we attempt to influence local culture, while on the other hand, we desperately want to integrate. What many Chinese people most desire in Singapore is to attain a local identity.

The loss of identity is a major source of anxiety for Chinese new arrivals. Too many Chinese are eager to integrate into Singapore, but this so-called integration is often driven by pragmatic goals, such as obtaining permanent residency or citizenship, rather than a genuine acceptance of the country’s culture and a willingness to put down roots for the long term.

This mirrors the role of religion in Chinese culture: Chinese Buddhism is often approached in a utilitarian way, with rituals like burning joss sticks seen more as means to fulfill wishes rather than acts of penance. Similarly, Chinese individuals in Singapore who seek citizenship may pay taxes, volunteer, purchase pension insurance and engage in charity not out of genuine commitment, but as strategic steps toward integration. Yet many Chinese parents are far more resistant to the idea of their sons doing military service than they are enthusiastic about acquiring citizenship.

However, Singaporeans’ inclusivity has led us to believe that we are integrated, particularly after receiving citizenship. In fact, the Chinese have continued to do things based on their own thinking, to the point where many can only do business with other Chinese people while acting like they have experience — teaching other Chinese people who are new to Singapore how to quickly integrate and get things done here, all while earning money and gratitude along the way.

Some might say that Singapore is a commercial society to begin with, and the government also handles relationships like a businessman. Yet when it comes to business, Singapore has often said no.

Take the finance industry — despite the influx of funds in recent years, Singapore continues to impose restrictions on financial license applications and their scope, regulate business expansion, enforce stringent anti-money laundering measures and implement controls on family offices. In contrast, Hong Kong’s regulatory environment is comparatively more relaxed.

There is a saying online that Hong Kong is like a jungle, where you must be sufficiently strong and agile to survive; Singapore is like a zoo, and to survive, you must express your loyalty to the zookeepers. This aptly describes the difference in mentality between both places when it comes to oversight. All ethnic Chinese, yet with different perspectives — integration is the slogan, while having differences is the everyday reality.

Of course, if we had not come to Singapore, we would not have witnessed the diversity in the Chinese-speaking world. Only when we are away from our homeland can we see ourselves clearly.