The Harvard Crimson on X - "NEW: Harvard President Alan Garber said the University “went wrong” by allowing faculty activism in the classroom, arguing professors’ political views have chilled free speech and debate on campus. @EliseSpenner and @HugoChiassonn report."
Ignorant far right extremist MAGAT. Everyone knows that colleges don't indoctrinate students, and brainwashing is a far right conspiracy theory and kids are just being exposed to new ideas and people
Garber Faults Faculty Activism for Chilling Campus Debate and Free Speech | News | The Harvard Crimson - "Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 said the University “went wrong” by allowing professors to inject their personal views into the classroom, arguing that faculty activism had chilled free speech and debate on campus. In rare and unusually candid remarks on a podcast released on Tuesday, Garber appeared to tie many of higher education’s oft-cited ills — namely, a dearth of tolerance and free debate — to a culture that permits, and at times encourages, professors to foreground their identity and perspectives in teaching. “How many students would actually be willing to go toe-to-toe against a professor who’s expressed a firm view about a controversial issue?” he said. The remarks mark Garber’s most explicit public acknowledgement that faculty practices have contributed to a breakdown in open discourse on campus — and that he is committed to backtracking toward neutrality in the classroom... Garber has launched a flurry of initiatives aimed at restoring what he has described as a culture of debate. Shortly after he assumed the presidency, Harvard adopted an institutional voice policy that commits the University and its top administrators to refrain from taking official positions on policy issues. Though Garber has carved some exceptions to the policy — notably when he, in his personal capacity, condemned a Palestine Solidarity Committee post marking the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack — he has increasingly emphasized restraint, particularly in the classroom. “I’m pleased to say that I think there is real movement to restore balance in teaching and to bring back the idea that you really need to be objective in the classroom,” he said... Garber echoed the sentiment of a Faculty of Arts and Sciences report released last January, which affirmed professors’ right to “extramural speech” but warned that instructors must proactively encourage disagreement in the classroom to avoid alienating students. One example of professors espousing political views, Garber said, was the rise of anti-Israel sentiment among a body of disproportionately left-wing faculty in the aftermath of Oct. 7. “This gets back to what I was talking about with speech,” Garber said. “It did happen in classrooms that professors would push this.” Garber said the rise in anti-Israel beliefs occurred in tandem with a rise in antisemitism on college campuses. Though Garber has dismissed attempts by the Trump administration to use antisemitism as a justification for its pressure campaign against the University, he has not denied its presence on Harvard’s campus. But Garber argued that the most pervasive form of antisemitism is not overt speech or protest violations, but social exclusion — what he described as “social shunning” that is “nearly impossible” to police or punish. As an example, Garber said he heard accounts from Israeli students who said conversations abruptly ended after they disclosed their nationality... Garber also defended recent revisions to Harvard’s protest and speech policies, including the divisive adoption of more stringent campus use rules. He said it was “relatively straightforward” to make rules that both preserve free speech rights and protect the operation of daily life... Garber did not directly reference the demands, or the Trump administration, during the podcast, but he reiterated that his central focus is to remove the bias of personal opinion from the classroom. “We’re not about the activism. We’re not about pushing particular points of view,” he said. “You should be logical, firmly grounded in the evidence and rigorous in how you approach these issues.”"
How ignorant. He must be a Zionist, since he doesn't know that anti-Zionism isn't anti-Semitism, and a dollar sign in a Star of David is just criticising Israel
The Dark Fiddling Pirate Jussim on X - "The point that activist faculty chill classroom speech is, perhaps, obvious to almost anyone paying attention except a hardcore lefty. What is surprising -- and a welcome development -- is that the Pres. of Harvard has publicly acknowledged it. Now, just imagine if Claudine Gay had stayed in the position"
Charles Gasparino on X - "Will he do anything about it? This was, after all, the school that proudly published in its in-house magazine an essay demanding that we "abolish the white race.""
Eliana Johnson on X - "Maybe Harvard and every other university went wrong by hiring professors with basically the same political views — maybe it’s that, and not allowing for their expression, that’s the problem."
Taya on X - "Harvard pushes “Abolish the White Race,” “Dying of Whiteness,” and “Disrupting Whiteness”, pure anti-White hate. Swap “White” with “Black”? Instant outrage and cancellation. Yet Harvard pockets ~$686M in taxpayer cash yearly to fund this anti-White racist garbage. Defund the anti-White indoctrination now."
Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries on X - "Harvard school librarian Matthew Noe, who threatened the President as shown in “When art speaks” post on Bluesky that’s still available, says I’m harassing him by speaking generally that some librarians may be an insider threat. He threatened POTUS. He’s an insider. Guilty much?
Thread by @aaronsibarium on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "NEW: Harvard punished a Taiwanese student, Cosette Wu, who disrupted a talk by China's ambassador. But it declined to punish a Chinese student who forcibly dragged Wu from the event. After video of the assault went viral, Harvard even gave that student a letter of apology .🧵
Wu got in all of 20 seconds of heckling before a student from China grabbed Wu and, in an incident that the university's police department logged as an assault, ejected her from the event. The student was Hongji Zou, a master's candidate in Harvard's Graduate School of Education and an officer in Harvard's chapter of the Chinese Students and Scholars Association—a group overseen by the Chinese Communist Party. Twisting Wu's arm and pulling her into the aisle, Zou, who had helped to organize Xie's talk, shoved the struggling protester past the stage and out of the room. There, he was stopped by a security guard who pried the younger female student from his grip. The case sparked outrage on social media and led to an investigation by the House Select Committee on the CCP, which demanded to know what sanctions, if any, Harvard had imposed on the students involved.
It would be hard to imagine a simpler case for a fair-minded disciplinary board. Wu's protest had technically violated Harvard's rules on free speech, which prohibit conduct that drowns out speakers or inhibits their ability to speak. BUT... But those rules have often gone unenforced at Harvard, particularly after the Oct. 7 attacks, including against disruptions that were more serious than Wu's. Just last week, the university told students that they would be allowed to disrupt a talk by Mosab Youssef—a former Hamas member who defected to Israel and became an outspoken critic of the terror group—for 10 minutes before being removed by security. By comparison, Wu's heckling of the ambassador lasted just 20 seconds. Zou, on the other hand, had roughed up a student for protesting the CCP. If Harvard were going to bring the hammer down on anyone, surely it would be Zou and not the woman he manhandled. But when the House Select Committee finally obtained the documents it had requested—police reports, disciplinary records, and emails between senior university officials, among others—it turned out Harvard had done the opposite. The university placed Wu on disciplinary probation in May over her "inappropriate social behavior." And it gave Zou, who had been identified and disparaged on social media, a letter of apology... Though the email acknowledged that Zou had violated Harvard's Policy on Physical Violence, it did not mention that his conduct had been classified as assault and battery in an April 20 incident report submitted to Massachusetts State Police...
"I wish I could say I was surprised, but this is par for the course for Harvard," said Virginia Foxx, the chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which is conducting a separate investigation of the university over its handling of anti-Semitism. "The only consistent part of the university's disciplinary standards is that they're always applied selectively to the benefit of favored groups." Those groups, she continued, include "pro-CCP agitators" as well as anti-Israel students. News of the disparate disciplinary actions comes as Jewish students are suing Harvard for the school's uneven enforcement of school rules after Oct. 7, when anti-Israel protesters took over public spaces, used megaphones inside campus buildings, and disrupted classes and events. The lawsuit, which was filed in January before the Chinese ambassador's appearance at the Kennedy School, describes several cases in which Harvard tolerated those disruptions or canceled programming to avoid them. Many of the protests appeared to violate Harvard's Statement on Rights and Responsibilities—the policy against disrupting events that the university used to punish Wu. The contrast could strengthen the argument, made at length in the 77-page complaint, that Harvard's willingness to tolerate certain disruptions but not others amounts to anti-Semitic discrimination...
Tldr: Harvard spent months tolerating disruptive anti-Israel protests. Then it brought the hammer down on a Taiwanese girl who was peacefully protesting a CCP apparatchik—while letting the Chinese national who assaulted her off the hook"
Inside Harvard’s Discrimination Machine - "The Trump administration has escalated its battle with Harvard University, freezing all future grants and threatening to strip the school’s tax-exempt status. In response, Harvard has adopted some conciliatory measures— rebranding its DEI office and cancelling its racially segregated graduation ceremonies—but, behind the scenes, the university’s discrimination machine continues to operate at full capacity. We’ve obtained a trove of internal documents that reveal Harvard’s racial favoritism in faculty and administrative hiring. The university’s DEI programs are more than “unconscious bias” training. They are vectors for systematic discrimination against disfavored groups: namely, white men. As one Harvard researcher told us, “endless evidence” suggests that the university continues to discriminate against the supposed oppressor class in hiring and promotions... Gail Heriot, a law professor who sits on the United States Commission on Civil Rights, characterized Harvard’s practice of making candidates swear fealty to DEI as a form of ideological conditioning. “At other universities, faculty candidates who respond to such inquiries by saying that they treat all individuals equally regardless of race, ethnicity, or sex get excluded from consideration,” she said. “The same is probably in store for any job candidates at Harvard who dissent from the campus orthodoxy on this issue.” Harvard’s discriminatory programs are not limited to faculty hiring. According to one of the internal documents we obtained, the university has adopted explicit racial hiring goals for administrative and support positions under the guise of affirmative action. For various divisions and occupations within the school, Harvard lists the percentage of each workforce that belongs to a “protected class,” as well as target goals. For example, the university declared a goal of increasing the share of minorities in one department’s alumni affairs office nearly sixfold, and of raising the share of female assistants in the School of Public Health to more than 90 percent. “Employers seldom set goals like these if they don’t intend them to be acted on,” Heriot said after reviewing the document. “These particular goals are hilarious,” she added. “Harvard has a few job categories that are already female dominated, sometimes with over seventy percent of its employees in those categories being female. Rather than being concerned with why more men aren’t applying, Harvard sets a goal to make these job categories even more female dominated.” These goals also potentially violate civil rights law. Dan Morenoff, executive director of the American Civil Rights Project, suggested that the document may legally expose Harvard. The document appears to violate the provisions of Executive Order 11246, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 and rescinded by President Trump earlier this year. Harvard’s plan “lumps together all racial and ethnic groups other than white people under the rubric ‘minority,’” Morenoff said, which courts have found to be a violation of racial balancing rules... These policies, while contemptible, are no secret on campus. According to the Harvard researcher, the university’s current hiring policies—for staff, administrative, and faculty positions—are deliberately discriminatory. “Harvard has strayed from its foundational mission of unbiased truth-seeking and has instead become ideologically driven,” the researcher said. “This is a totally corrupted institution.”"
Josh Rainer on X - "It really shows how fundamentally wrong liberals are about everything because their compass is broken, that their attempted debunking of the heat map is that “the circles are inclusive! We care about everything!” You can’t, it’s not possible, but even striving for something like that is so deranged it should qualify for involuntary commitment in an insane asylum. “I love everything” ok so your love means nothing. It’s worthless. What kind of sick freak loves someone in Mogadishu or a lizard like they love their own child? You could never trust someone like this. It’s suicidal. It’s sociopathic. But it’s not real. It’s malicious and weaponized. Used to inflict harm. This is why you see them always pivot to new “current thing” which becomes the cause of all causes. “Climate change stop everything. Covid lockdown everyone, churn out vaccines. Wait BLM let the riots go. You think black people have it bad what about Gaza?” Hey I thought the world was ending haven’t heard a thing about global warming in awhile? You can trust a conservative to care about their family and friends and country before anything else. You can’t trust a liberal to be anything other than schizophrenic. And the funny thing is, the normal liberals, are total conservatives until they get triggered by politics."
On the empathy circles/empathy heatmaps showing that left wingers have empathy for inanimate objects like rocks
Greta Thunberg is a warning to parents raising ideologically captured kids - "“How dare you?” Remember that fiery 2019 United Nations speech, when a 16-year-old Greta Thunberg stared down world leaders and accused the adults in the room of stealing her future by ignoring climate change? The moment catapulted the perpetually pinch-faced teen towards unfathomable stardom as a self-anointed champion for human rights and the planet’s survival. But fast-forward to today, and Greta is falling quite short of that promise. She’s not a savior — in fact, she’s a malignant force trying to erase the horrors inflicted on some of the world’s most vulnerable, the victims of Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre. How can someone who built her life around securing youth a future be so hell-bent on obliterating the past, silencing Jewish voices and denying the suffering of children burned alive, women raped and families slaughtered?... Thunberg was detained under Britain’s Terrorism Act for supporting hunger-striking members of Palestine Action, a group the government proscribed last year. Holding a sign reading, “I support Palestine Action prisoners. I oppose genocide,” she openly legitimized a terrorist organization. This can no longer be shrugged off as youthful rebellion; it is a glaring absence of any moral compass. Nothing is beyond the pale for her, no alliance too toxic, no atrocity too inconvenient to ignore. Greta has become a weaponized vessel of the far left, deployed against Jews, against Israel, against Western democracy itself. But supporting terrorists is just the beginning. Thunberg co-signed an open letter in October from more than 300 writers, activists and politicians, including Squad member Rashida Tlaib and Irish writer Sally Rooney, pledging to boycott The New York Times over its coverage of Hamas’ atrocities. The group accused the paper of “anti-Palestinian bias” and demanded it retract its December 2023 investigative piece “Screams Without Words,” which detailed the systematic sexual violence Hamas committed during the 2023 attacks. This was a direct call to suppress and erase evidence of those barbaric crimes, labeling the report “widely debunked” despite its reliance on eyewitness accounts and forensic details. By pushing to bury this documentation of rape as a weapon of war, Thunberg is unabashedly demanding censorship of Hamas atrocities that left Jewish women brutalized and families shattered. How dare you, Greta? And in June, Thunberg joined a so-called freedom flotilla to Gaza, a publicity stunt masquerading as aid delivery. Intercepted by Israeli forces, she and her crew refused to watch Oct. 7 footage, the same barbaric acts detailed in the Times report. Thunberg didn’t just look away — she aligned with pro-Hamas narratives to downplay or deny these crimes, effectively demanding the world forget more than 1,200 dead and countless more traumatized civilians in Israel. The stunted Thunberg manufactures an illusion of deity, a modern Joan of Arc fighting for justice and peace, but her path is littered with division and destruction. She sets fires ahead and leaves a warpath behind, all while claiming to champion human suffering worldwide. But what fuels this twisted judgment? A strictly vegan, purely ideological diet may be partially to blame. Thunberg, who is autistic, has been vegan since age 10, shunning all animal products without exception, from milk to eggs to honey. That’s more than a decade of depriving a developing brain of essential nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, iron and zinc, key for cognitive health, especially in those with neurological vulnerabilities. Research shows vegan diets can lead to deficiencies that impair brain function, mood regulation and even social cognition. For someone with autism, this is a double whammy: an innate brain difference compounded by ideological eating that starves the mind of healthy fats needed for growth and introspection. Studies on “ideological food choice” reveal how vegans often tie their diets to identity politics, normalizing extreme views in echo chambers where there is no nuance. Thunberg embodies this, trapped in a bubble of small thinking, unable to grasp history’s complexities or her role as a pawn in progressive causes. She’s never matured past a child’s grandiose whims, those black-and-white ideals that ignore context and triangulation. Without proper nourishment, her vulnerable brain hasn’t developed the capacity for thoughtful analysis, leaving her susceptible to manipulation. Greta has good company in her vegan-fueled extremism. Take the French anti-meat activists sentenced in 2019 for vandalizing butchers and restaurants, their ideology turning dietary choice into violent crusade. Or the Animal Liberation Front, labeled ecoterrorists by the FBI for arson and threats, where vegan purism devolves into criminality. And it’s not surprising: A 2005 case of five siblings on a raw vegan diet showed growth delays and rickets, underscoring how such restrictions can physically and mentally hinder development. Thunberg is no hero. She should serve as a warning to parents raising kids captured by an ideology, whether food, politics or otherwise. Raised in a family that affirmed rather than challenged her eccentricities, she’s the product of intense coddling with consequences that affect us all. At 22, the 4’11” woman-child continues to push far-left agendas that endanger the very democracy and human rights she purports to fight for. Scarier still, Greta inspires young people to become trapped in the omnicause activist-industrial complex, embodying the threat to our collective future she originally warned us about."
Islamophobia definition ‘will stop Iranians protesting in Britain’ - "Sir John Jenkins, who was ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria, claimed that any criticism of the Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime in Tehran would “involve hostility towards Islam” and would fall foul of the definition. He said that protests against the regime were a “worked example” of the consequences of an Islamophobia definition. “If you have a definition which seeks to stigmatise hostility toward Islam, you are potentially preventing anyone from saying anything at all about Islam,” Sir John told The Telegraph. “The connections between the Iranian regime and organised Islamism are absolutely central to what the regime is. Protests against the Islamic Republic take on an anti-Islamist flavour.”... “If you make a point of criticising the way the Islamic Republic seeks to oppress women by mandatory veiling you will be criticised for expressing hostility to a particular facet of being Muslim,” he said. “Khameini claims to be the supreme leader, he claims to be divinely guided... Anything you do, any criticism you want to make, will involve hostility towards Islam.” Sir John co-authored a report for Policy Exchange, where he is a senior fellow, which said any official definition of Islamophobia would “almost certainly turbocharge ‘cancel culture’” and would “be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone”. His concern about the definition was echoed by Iranian dissidents. Shahin Gobadi of the National Council of Resistance of Iran said: “The notion that people have to face some restrictions of criticising this regime or exposing it, or divulging its true nature, is totally, totally unfathomable”... Mahyar Tousi, the Iranian dissident and TousiTV founder, said an Islamophobia definition sounded reasonable “on paper” but added: “Unfortunately Islamists often claim that they are offended when people criticise any part of Islam – like doctrine in the Koran.” Ms Tousi continued: “The Labour Government risks giving more power to Islamists who may be able to take people to court for legitimately criticising the text. “We can see with these heroic protests in Iran why it is so important to be able to criticise extremist Islamic dogma. And that is why this new anti-Muslim hostility definition could pose a danger.” Niyak Ghorbani, an Iranian dissident and activist, said: “As an Iranian living in England, I can see that a word that is meant to prevent hatred has become a tool to silence criticism of ideology. “In practice, Islamophobia has become a word that disarms free societies – protecting Islamists who have not yet reached power.” Lily Moo, another Iranian dissident and activist, said: “I have lived under radical, extremist Islamist rule before I ran to freedom in the UK so I know what that feels like. “I am outraged by this Labour government who are threatening the British public’s freedom of speech. We must be able to criticise Islam.”"
Hindus warn Labour against ‘chilling’ Islamophobia definition - "Hindu community leaders have warned Sir Keir Starmer that Labour’s new Islamophobia definition will have a “significant chilling effect” on freedom of speech. They said the definition conflated hostility towards Muslims with criticism of the religion of Islam, which would mean Hindus speaking about their historical persecution under Islamic empires in South Asia would fall foul of the definition. Last week, the Hindu Council UK wrote a letter to Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, saying there was a “serious” risk that the definition could suppress legitimate criticism of contemporary Islamist ideology out of fear of breaching a “poorly defined standard of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’”. It also claimed that it could also lead to the backdoor reintroduction of a blasphemy law that would protect Islam without according the same rights to other religions. “By granting heightened protection to a religion-linked identity through concepts such as ‘racialisation’ and ‘collective stereotyping’, the proposed definition continues to risk shielding Islamic beliefs and practices from scrutiny in practice, if not in law,” the council said. “This is especially troubling given that the UK deliberately abolished blasphemy laws to ensure that no belief system is beyond challenge.”... The council said it was concerned the definition could be exploited or misused by individuals or activist groups seeking to shut down debate, lodge vexatious complaints or pressurising institutions to sanction lawful speech. It claimed there was a risk of a two-tier approach to different religions, saying: “The creation of a bespoke definition for one faith group without equivalent frameworks for others, this risks fostering resentment and the perception of unequal treatment, something Hindu and Sikh organisations have repeatedly warned against.”"
State-funded Minneapolis food pantry sparks criticism for serving 'Black and Indigenous Folx' only - "What started as an effort to address hunger in north Minneapolis has ignited controversy. Mykela “Keiko” Jackson used a Paths to Black Health Grant from the state of Minnesota to launch the Food Trap Project Bodega—a free food pantry aimed at serving underserved residents located on the property of Sanctuary Covenant Church. “These grant program funds are specifically designed to support organizations that work with U.S.-born African Americans. For the purposes of this RFP, Black(s) or African American(s) specifically references the U.S.-born African American population for whom studies indicate that health has been impacted as the result of historical trauma. This trauma includes post-traumatic slave syndrome (PTSS) and epigenetic inheritance,” a description of the grant explains. According to the state’s website, the grant program is designed to reduce health disparities among African Americans and foster a “vibrant and thriving” community. But now, some say it’s doing the opposite. Reports emerged that non-Black residents were being turned away from the pantry, raising concerns about racial discrimination in a neighborhood where many diverse groups reside. At the heart of the backlash was a sign posted on the pantry that read: “The resources found in here are intended for Black & Indigenous Folx. Please refrain from taking anything if you’re not.” For some, like Howard Dotson, this message was a slap in the face. Dotson, a Twin Cities chaplain and caretaker of a nearby apartment building, said one of his tenants was refused help at the pantry because he was white... Jackson admitted to the signage but denied turning anyone away in person. “There was no one there directly turning them away. They felt entitled to the resources that were not for their demographic—white privilege is real,” said Jackson. She also dismissed Dotson’s complaint to the Civil Rights Commission as “political violence,” adding, “We hope these white patrons can go about their day and not harass us anymore.”... Church severs ties after backlash"
vittorio on X - "> be obama 2008
> "we need border security"
> "marriage is between a man and a woman"
> "illegal immigration hurts american workers"
> win women by historic margins
> be conservative 2026
> say exact same things
> "far-right hate movement"
> women flee in terror
the overton window moved, not the right. modern republicans would be democrats 20 years ago and radicals 60 years ago. a decade of censorship shifted both parties leftward. hanania, of course, is wrong. he thinks this is a messaging problem when it's an incentives problem.
two things happened: the definition of "hateful" expanded to include positions that were mainstream democrat 15 years ago and women lean towards what *feels* less hateful
single women benefit disproportionately from expanded government. the state becomes the provider when men can't or won't. voting patterns track marital status almost perfectly. married women vote like men, single women vote for more government. the "hate" framing is downstream rationalization of economic interest
you cant message your way past incentive structures"
This is also why feminists and the left hate marriage and the family so much
Christopher Dummitt: The redemption of John A. Macdondald (2026) - "John A. Macdonald is back, just in time to celebrate what would have been his 211th birthday on Sunday. It’s not just his statues and honorifics — though those are coming back too, most notably his now unboxed statue at Queen’s Park and the revived Prime Ministers Path project in Wilmot, Ontario. It’s also the resurrection of a “Build Canada” ethos. There’s even a new civic group of that name committed to the idea that our nation isn’t just about saying “sorry” and being polite; it’s also a recognition that the country needs reinforcement and had to be built in the first place. It’s about cherishing values like “growth is good,” “bold beats safe,” and “success should be celebrated.” There’s nothing like an existential threat to make you realize what really counts. Whether it’s a brush with death or terrible illness in your personal life, or a wildly unpredictable American president willing to upend international norms and impose American hegemony throughout the western hemisphere, moments like this can force a reassessment of what you can and should learn from your nation’s history. Suddenly you might find yourself looking back to one of the most successful Canadian political leaders and asking not just, as we have been doing, how should I judge him? You might also want to ask: what can I learn from him? And not just him, but the era in which he lived. The challenges of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Canada look a lot like those faced by John A. in the 19th century: the need to build national infrastructure, react to a protectionist and threatening America, stitch together an east-west national economy, and do all of this in a country where regional rivalries threatened to tear it apart. In no way is this clearer than in the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was a wildly ambitious project to put tracks of steel across a continent, far in advance of settlement, crossing seemingly impassable mountainous terrain, linking the eastern part of British North America with the sparsely settled new province of British Columbia. That province had been convinced to join Canada in 1871 even though it might more logically have joined the United States, which had only just purchased Alaska in 1867. When modern-day detractors of a pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia talk about there not being a “business case,” they should take a look at the CPR. There was absolutely no market case to build this rail line. Investors refused to risk their own capital. And when they did get on board, they wanted the line to run south of the Great Lakes, in America, to make it more viable. Macdonald’s government had to lure capital into the project. So why did Macdonald push for it? It was, of course, to build the very nation we now call Canada — to create an east-west nexus of transportation and communication, to knit together the colonies of British North America into a continental empire... After a severe depression in the 1870s and debates over free trade, he pushed a National Policy of immigration, railways, and tariffs — not just for revenue but to protect a Canadian economy... Reading accounts of the CPR’s history today can make you laugh at how much more ambitious the builders of that age were. Small groups of surveyors trekked through mountainous passes, relied on Indigenous guides, worked far from any familiar settlements, and made decisions that, by modern standards, were acted on with astonishing speed. I write these words from Peterborough, Ont., which is supposed to be a stop on a future high-speed rail line linking Toronto to Quebec City. For decades, governments have talked about building this corridor. In different forms, Pierre Trudeau promised it, as did Jean Chrétien. Stephen Harper vacillated, and then Justin Trudeau assured us it would be built. The younger Trudeau even established Crown corporations to plan and study it. One of his last actions in February 2025 was to announce that the line was now definitely going to happen. How did he prove this? By announcing funding to study and plan the route — not to build it. As of now, the proposal, still without construction funding, is to begin building in 2029. That’s a lot of promises: zero building. Or consider Toronto’s now-infamous Eglinton Crosstown. First imagined as a subway expansion in the 1970s, construction even began before being cancelled. The plan was later resurrected as a light-rail line, interrupted during the Rob Ford era, and construction finally began in 2011. It was supposed to open in 2020. As of early January 2026, it still isn’t open. In other words, Toronto has taken longer to build and open a 19-kilometre light-rail line than Macdonald’s Canada took to build nearly 3,500 kilometres of transcontinental railway across rugged terrain and mountains. Build Canada indeed."
The only country left wing Canadians hate more than Canada is the United States
If there has been an environmental lobby in the 19th century, they would've opposed the railway too
