Links - 29th August 2026 (2 - Trans Mania)

PressReader.com | Fury as Amnesty brands JK’s rape charity ‘anti-rights’ over Potter author’s trans views
Agent P on X - "You would think that human rights organisations would be defending vulnerable women, not criticising services created for them. 🤔"

Thread by @MensNetwork1 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Amnesty International chose to libel the Gay Men's Network as an "anti-rights" group along with several LBG organisations. We object to NGOs who espouse gender ideology misusing their formidable funding and influence in this fashion and we are seeking a formal apology. Amnesty has absolutely no right to dictate what political opinions gay men may or may not hold on gender ideology. It has no right to "evidence launder" a list of dissent lesbian and gay groups as targets for opprobrium or public condemnation. Making lists of political enemies is the sort of activity Amnesty used to actively and admirably campaign against, now it does precisely that. Further, the "report" in question counsels unlawful belief discrimination by regulators and funding bodies.  The Charity sector preaches diversity yet is singularly intolerant of Gay Men and Lesbians who correctly analyse gender ideology as deeply homophobic from the denial of same sex attraction to the scandal of high numbers of same-sex attracted youth at gender clinics. For the avoidance of any doubt, we will not allow libels from Amnesty to scare or intimidate us. We are gay men who have faced prejudice and discrimination all of our lives and a captured charity engaging in libel is anaemic by comparison to what most gay men have experienced. We affirm out commitment to fighting the dangerous and draconian Conversion Practices Bill Amnesty supports and we repeat our criticism that it exploits real gay pain in order to terrify parents of children experiencing distress around gender. We are currently in the process of updating our website. When it is complete the letter will also be posted publicly there, just as Amnesty's libels of us and other LGB organisations were made public. We urge the Charity Commission to urgently consider action in this matter. It cannot be right for charities to compile lists of political opponents and public libel them in this way. The gender corruption of the 3rd sector is a huge issue. It is time to act."

Maya Forstater on X - "For years we were told that trans rights and women’s rights could not in any way be in conflict. Amnesty's smearing of Beira's Place makes very clear that women's rights just don't count."
Left wingers still claim that rights are like cake - more for one doesn't mean less for others

John Cleese on X - "I was once a major fund-raiser for Amnesty. But in those days it was about preventing torture. Not about sexual identity. I disown them"

vittorio on X - "it's really sad seeing how they keep parading ellen page around like this little sacrificial object to remind themselves how good and woke they are. everyone can see how she's a sad, broken woman who's been abused and betrayed by everyone around her but no one cares about her enough to have the basic decency to tell her the truth, that she looks ridiculous and has ruined her life. they just keep the parade going so they can feel morally superior while she pays the price.  ironically, all the "bigot transphobes" care more about these people than anyone around them validating their delusions"
Wesley Yang on X - "There are many people who claim in all sincerity to have been saved by giving all their money to Scientology or the Moonies. This may even be true. We look at them and feel pity -- but the cult gave them what they were lacking in life. It gave them community. It gave them a sense of purpose. It gave a structure to their desire and their striving.   That is what cults sell and what its salesmen sell successfully precisely because they are themselves true believers in their product because they did in fact derive many of the benefits they sell to others from their own immersion in the cult.   This is what transgenderism sells to its adherents. It sells a story of magical self-transformation that is also the attainment of an authentic self. It does so through rituals of self-mortification that impose a sunk cost so great on those inflicting them on themselves that escaping the resulting immersion in a fictive, pseudo-reality that would vindicate such a sacrifice -- constructed in the same way that all social realities are constructed, through institutional validation -- becomes nearly impossible. "Death before detransition." It does so by creating intense trauma bonds between those who have undergone the rituals, which are further intensified by the cultivated sense of being oppressed unto death by the cisnormative world that surrounds them.   In a liberal, pluralistic society that honors freedom of speech and freedom of association, we don't ban commercial cults. We allow them to proselytize. What we don't do is give them access to schools to recruit children, we don't brainwash children in the millions to accept their beliefs as the only truth, we don't give their cult rituals the imprimatur of medicine, we don't allow them to use state power to force people to pay obeisance to their cult dogmas. The President doesn't affirm their dogmas or direct his executive agencies to propagate them.   Transgenderism is novel in this way. Sharing aspects of many prior group psychological phenomenon -- the social contagions of eating disorders and Recovered Memory Syndrome, the business model of multi-level marketing schemes, the trauma-bonding of the gang initiation or the hazing ritual -- it melded these elements with institutional capture via two masquerades in which it successfully passed as something it is not: firstly, as a form of medicine, secondly, as a civil rights movement.    Undoing this unbelievable concatenation may actually be beyond the critical and epistemic capacities of the Western world."

J Stewart on X - "🤯 Listen to this extraordinary exchange between Camilla Tominey and Labour’s Health Secretary James Murray. It is genuinely jaw-dropping.
Camilla: “You’re quite pro-trans, aren’t you? Do you think a woman can have a penis? Because you did previously?”
Murray: “No, I don’t.”
Camilla: “So you’ve changed your mind?”
Murray: “Yes.”
Camilla: “Why?”
Murray stumbles. He says he’s been thinking about the issue over recent years and would not now say trans women are women.  Camilla hits back: “You must have known that before. You are very well educated. How on earth can you have previously thought that a woman can have a penis?”  He had no real answer. Because there isn’t one.   This is not some backbench MP. This is the Secretary of State for Health, the man responsible for the entire NHS, puberty blocker policy, women’s health services, and child safeguarding.  He spent years either believing or pretending to believe that biological sex is fluid and that women can have penises. Only now, when the Cass Review, court rulings, and public opinion have made that position politically toxic, has he magically “changed his mind”.   Think about the damage done while he held that view. The eroded women’s rights. The confused children fast-tracked toward hormones and surgery. The female prisoners and athletes forced to share spaces with biological males. All enabled or ignored by senior Labour figures like him.  This level of ideological delusion at the very top of government is not just embarrassing, it is dangerous. Basic biology should never have been up for debate, let alone something a Health Secretary had to “evolve” on."

Canada Sticks With Gender-Affirming Care Despite Cass Review Evidence (aka "How Canada Jumped the Rails on ’Gender-Affirming Care’: A Quillette Investigation") - "The idea that doctors should uncritically heed a patient’s self-diagnosis was an unsettling innovation, and one that is generally alien to other branches of health care. To this day, the Canadian Paediatric Society proselytises the idea of gender identity as a soul-like ether that most children can categorise reliably when they are just three years old. In many cases, old-fashioned conservative stereotypes about what boys and girls are supposed to wear, what colours they should prefer, and what toys they should play with have been transformed into purportedly meaningful indicators that could eventually serve to propel a child down a life path that includes amputated body parts and a lifelong drug regime. Possible evidence of gender identity, the CPS indicates to parents who consult its “Caring for Kids” resources, for instance, includes the fact that she refuses to put on a dress, “even on special occasions.” By the early 2020s, the mania for “affirmation” properly became an object of concern among medical experts, who noted that the underlying theory was based more on slogans than science; and that the studies purporting to support GAC’s efficacy typically were marked by small samples, biased design, and circular reporting. A vocal detransitioner community emerged, with harrowing tales of gender-clinic doctors eagerly expressing their “allyship” with a hastily produced set of drug prescriptions. All of this has been pointed out to the CPS leadership in peer-reviewed form. But the organisation still stands by its original 2023 Position Statement on the subject of GAC—a document that exhorts Canadian doctors to adopt an “affirming approach to routine health care provision for all youth,” and enshrine gender-affirming care as the unquestioned “standard of care for transgender or gender-diverse youth.” The timing of the CPS Position Statement was unfortunate, as it came less than a year before Dr Hilary Cass, a former president of Britain’s Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, released a blockbuster Report that exhaustively analysed the international evidence for and against gender-affirming care. Critics had been picking GAC apart for years by this point. But what Dr Cass achieved was on another level: The Cass Review, as it has come to be called, was the most authoritative analysis of the available literature regarding the treatment of gender dysphoric minors that had ever been published. It still is. Dr Cass concluded that the “potential risks to neurocognitive development, psychosexual development, and longer-term bone health” associated with the use of puberty blockers to treat trans-identified children are substantial.” Her analysis also showed that the widespread claim that “hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide” among trans-identified youth isn’t supported by the available evidence. This latter conclusion was especially important, because the morbid claim that trans-identified children are at imminent risk of suicide without rapid and enthusiastic “affirmation” from all quarters had always been deployed as a propaganda weapon of last (and sometimes first) resort by activists and “gender-affirming” medical personnel. Indeed, many whistleblowing parents who’d expressed scepticism of the GAC provided to their children have reported hearing some version of this ghoulish theme from zealous therapists and doctors. Moreover, the idea that gender affirmation was a form of suicide prevention turned what had once been a medical debate into a contest of moral virtue, as it allowed GAC proponents to present their movement in heroic life-or-death terms—an epic human-rights struggle against heartless (and presumably transphobic) naysayers who were prepared to condemn transgender children to the grave. To this day, in fact, this self-valorizing nature of the GAC movement seems to be one of the main attractions for social-justice minded medical-school graduates. Critics initially tried to dismiss Dr Cass as a stooge of right-wing Bible-thumpers, and confidently predicted that her analysis would collapse under scrutiny. But that didn’t happen. Just the opposite, in fact: The British Medical Union (BMU), the trade union for British doctors, spent two years trying to debunk the Cass Review at the behest of the union’s pro-GAC activist constituency. Yet once this singularly thorough investigation of Dr Cass’s work wrapped up in early 2026, the BMU wound up conceding that Dr Cass’s “robust” analysis had been vindicated. Dr Cass’s report effectively sounded the death knell for the “affirmation” model in the UK, and did much to accelerate the rollback of GAC policies internationally—and not just in conservative jurisdictions such as Republican-controlled U.S. states. Socially progressive nations that have rolled back GAC-style policies in recent years include not only the UK, but also Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, and Italy. Since the Cass Review was published, more primary research has emerged in support of Dr Cass’s conclusions. This includes newly released Finnish data, covering every under-23-year-old individual who’d been referred for gender treatment in Finland between 1996 and 2019—a cohort containing almost 2,100 people. Following gender-clinic referrals, the study found, clinically trans-affirmed patients exhibited greater psychiatric morbidity than members of a control group... I (somewhat earnestly) concluded my May 12 article with a prediction that the CPS would surely (if belatedly) catch up with its international counterparts... the CPS made nonsense of my words with the choice of its new President: an unusually zealous gender-affirmation advocate named Natasha Johnson."

Jonathan Kay on X - "One astounding thing that I learned while researching my @Quillette investigation of the Cdn Paediatric Society is that Dr. Daniel Metzger, who co-wrote the CPS "Position Statement" on the claimed merits of "gender-affirming care," thinks the Cass Review is a "pile of garbage""

Meme - Just passing through: "The homophobic London Pride.... Rejects homosexuals who won't bend the knee to the poisonous TQcult. #LGBwithouttheTQ"
Pride in London: ""Same sex attracted" is just another word for Nazis. We don't need you here."
Time to call those who reject trans mania homophobic

bitchuneedsoap on X - "I spent time inside a “trans help” group posing as a minor who needed to hide everything from my parents.  The adults in the group did not pause. They did not redirect me to a doctor. They did not suggest telling a parent. They gave me sourcing instructions, supplier links, and workflows for obtaining DIY hormones discreetly.  Adults, coaching a child on how to medically transition behind their parents’ backs.  I will be exposing this network in the coming days."

Theresa Verity on X - "I first worked out what I was at age 5. What fetish was it that I, as a 5 year old, was experiencing? Please at least try and make a coherent argument"
Diana Alastair💚🤍💜 ⚢ ❌❌✡️ on X - "Oh, boy, did you get the wrong woman. I’m a homicide investigator with experience working sex crimes, and I am _happy_ to explain why it’s still a fetish - to you, and to anyone else who wants to read along.  See, fetishes/paraphilias often start in prepubescence, long before any sort of sexual awakening. Some start even earlier than five. Jerome Brudos, for example, began his obsession with women’s shoes at the age of 4. He later went on to murder and mutilate multiple women, cutting off their feet so as to model his shoe collection for photographs.   He was an AGP too, by the way - or a transvestitic fetishist, if you prefer the traditional term. Lots of serial killers are; I can name half a dozen off the top of my head: BTK, Ed Gein (who was making himself a woman suit out of real women and is one of the models for Buffalo Bill) Russell Williams, Jacques Coatzee, Beate Schmidt, and Harvey Marcelin, for starters. There are plenty more. But I’m getting sidetracked.   Brudos is hardly the only example of a fetishist who experienced early stirrings, as it were. Enter any online fetish community, and you will find users who had a strong prepubescent affinity for what has now become a full-fledged paraphilia.   Claiming to have “known” since you were 5 in no way precludes your obsession with possessing a female body from being fetishistic. Given your attitude that your self-induced gynecomastia is your most important “womanly” trait, I’d say it’s a certainty that you’re a fetishist. Tell me, do you get euphoria boners like so many other “transwomen” do when they crossdress?"

ripx4nutmeg on X - "Bodycam footage has just been released of police visiting an American campus last year following the report of a car theft. Unfortunately for them, the first person they meet is a cross-dressing student, who throws repeated and aggressive tantrums over his gender identity."
Devon Eriksen on X - "What you are seeing here isn't individual mental illness.   It's a culture clash between a matriarchal and patriarchal system.   Women are evolved to take care of babies. Their notion  of fairness, justice, and the way things "should" be are therefore evolved around the needs of babies.   All babies are important, all babies must be taken care of, and the babies who are the highest priority are the ones most urgently in need. Babies signal need by crying.   So, in a matriarchal system, resources, attention, and influence are steered towards whoever creates the most urgent appearance of need, by crying the loudest.   Men are evolved to hunt wild game, often large and dangerous game, in teams. Their notion of fairness, justice, and the way things "should" be are therefore evolved around the needs of the team.   Teams need men to take risks, and endure hardship, for the sake of accomplishing a goal.   So, in a patriarchal system, resources, attention, and influence are steered towards whoever appears to be contributing the most to, or sacrificing the most for,  the mission or the overall welfare of the team.   This weird guy having a meltdown on camera is, indeed, delusional. He thinks he is a woman. But this delusion is not brought on by normal, individual mental illness.   Instead, it is brought by cultural illness, which is the mental illness of an entire society. He is hyper-adapted to the matriarchal subculture he exists in, where the most effective social strategy is to be the neediest of all the babies.   Then, along comes a patriarchal team... the police. They have a mission... to resolve the complained-of disturbance, so they can get on the the next mission of investigating a stolen car.   Our subject immediately tries to wield social power by signalling distress, as he has been taught to do.   But this does not result in social power over the policeman, because the policeman is patriarchal and doesn't think that way.   Instead, he thinks about his mission. To resolve a "disturbance", which has probably only been vaguely described to him on the radio, and that's all the information he has.   So, to him, the mission is to calm shit down. And the biggest threat, obstacle, or challenge to the mission is whoever is most visibly spazzing out.   So our subject's power strategy, tuned for a matriarchal culture, actually makes him the biggest threat to the mission.   So the policemen engage him, as the primary target, subdue him, control him, and remove him from the scene. Once this is done, peace and tranquility are restored, and they can, presumably, get on with their car theft call.   However, our subject still doesn't understand what he did wrong, or why this is happening to him.   Had he been contacted by agents of a matriarchal power structure, the response to his tantrums would have been increased attention and care, in an attempt to "deescalate" his emotional state.   But the patriarchal solution is not to deescalate just because someone is agitated. It is to apply whatever solution will resolve the immediate problem the most quickly and cheaply.   In this case, that meant escalating to the minimum level of force necessary to remove the source of trouble from the scene.   Which was the result he got.   There are generally no magic words you can say to someone that will undo decades of cultural and institutional programming in a minute or two.   This guy might appear crazy to you, but the important thing to understand is that he is not just individually cracked or bonkers. He is the result of a systematic process that cranks out crackpots like an assembly line.   And that process is inevitable in any culture where female political power outweighs male political power. Instead of competing to play the hardest and best and be the MVP, people compete to cry the loudest and be the neediest baby."

Jenn Pellegrino 🇺🇸 on X - "I can't believe this is real. The Chancellor of UC San Francisco testified under oath that a "vast majority of pregnancies are in women." Implying some pregnancies occur in men. When asked directly whether a non-biological woman has ever had a baby, he refused to answer. This is the head of one of the top medical schools in the country."
Time to condemn Creationists for refusing to recognise biological facts and causing harm

Colorado Principled Physicians on X - "UCSF Chancellor Samuel Hawgood is a neonatologist pediatrician with history of many years of clinical practice being around mothers who have just given birth, being paid to care for their sick babies. What kind of trans industry sellout do you really have to be to say something like this? If a man can lie publicly that men can get pregnant - something so easy to disprove - what will he not lie about? We are not afraid of telling the truth about the very fundamentals of human existence and origins: women, and only women, can get pregnant. Put that in your pipe and try not to inhale the smoke, Dr Samuel Hawgood. We hope you will apologize to the public and act more worthy of your medical license in future."

Wesley Yang on X - "A 70-year white male leader of an important medical institution is humiliating himself before the whole world because he is subject to the same power that now holds millions of elementary schoolchildren in its grips.   The same false dogmas he must parrot and defer to are being taught to millions of schoolchildren as the only truth. If an eminent physician and institutional leader cannot resist the enforced lies, what hope does your 11-year old daughter have?   If the Democrats regain power and pass the Equality Act, the same power that compels him to lie and abase himself will be inflicted onto every American citizen."

Wesley Yang on X - "He didn't answer the question about non-biological women because he doesn't actually know any of the dogmas he is forced to parrot in order to remain in good standing within the university: only biological women have babies; some of those women who have babies pretend to be men, ("Trans men,") and thus "men can have babies" because "Trans Men are Men."   Men who pretend to be women ("trans women") do not have babies because they are men and only women (including women who pretend to be men, whom we are all obliged to call "men" because "Trans Men are Men") can give birth."

Sam Morgan on X - "When you say: "The problem isn't trans women it's cis men." We all hear: "The problem isn't men, it's men." It makes you sound crazy."

Meme - "Alphabet People: "We're oppressed"
Literally everything: *long escalator in subway station with Pride flag on both walls and on central area as far as the eye can see*"

Meme - Non-Passing MTF: "FOR MY FINAL WISH, I WISH TO BE A WOMAN."
Genie: "DONE."
Non-Passing MTF: "NOTHING HAPPENED?"
Genie: "CORRECT! TRANSWOMEN ARE women."
*Puzzled Non-Passing MTF*
*Angry Non-Passing MTF*

The Wall Street Journal on X - "The transgender-rights movement has lost nearly all of its ground in red states, and is on the defensive in blue states. How did it happen?"
Jonathan Kay on X - "i have no idea. it's a complete mystery"
Meme - *Ontario NDP Kristyn Wong Tam photo op*
"Protect 2SLGBTQI+ Communities"
*FTM/Butch at podium*
*Drag queens and/or non-passing trans people around, with one in a mask and one looking like a child*
Meme - *Possible MTF with "Kill the Terf" on T-shirt*
*Probable MTF with "I Punch TERFS" top with fake blood*
*Probable MTF with painted white face, naked except for V underwear with "Kill Da TERFS" written on torso*
*Man with "Feminist As Fuck" mask and "Kill the TERF" T-shirt*
Meme - *Trans march with people in wheelchairs and masks and other non-normal looking people*

On Jason Arday's Victims

Clearly only ignorant, stupid, uneducated Conservatives do not trust universities.

Simon Elmer on X

Jason Arday wasn’t a fantasist or serial liar. He wasn’t a poster boy for the woke-Left or an unfairly hounded victim of the far-Right. Jason Arday was a criminal, and he chose suicide rather than face the consequences of his crimes. In the UK, fraud is formally prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006. This defines fraud as false representation, which means lying or misleading someone intentionally; as failure to disclose information you have a legal duty to share; or as abuse of a position of trust. A person is guilty of fraud if he knowingly commits the above offences in order to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another or expose them to the risk of loss. The gain or loss may be money or other property, including intellectual. A person guilty of fraud is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for up to 10 years, or to a fine, or to both. Criminal prosecutions for fraud are handled by the Crown Prosecution Service. Civil actions are pursued by victims to recover lost money. Jason Arday was guilty of committing all three categories of fraud; but whom did he defraud, and of what? The first group of people defrauded by Jason Arday is the British taxpayer who funded the various grants he was awarded to gain his degrees at Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral level. None of his degrees should have been awarded, and he never should have received the funding to undertake them. So the British taxpayer has been defrauded of money that should have gone to a genuine student or students producing work of benefit to our society, not DEI rubbish about decolonising the very academic institutions he was defrauding. To be sure, Arday himself wasn’t responsible alone for this fraud, and the various academics who oversaw his theses and the boards that awarded him the degrees are also guilty of fraud, and should be investigated and, if found guilty of complicity to defraud the British taxpayer, compelled to refund the cost of the funding. The second group of people defrauded by Jason Arday are the academics who were not awarded the positions in academia he was granted. Following the awarding of his fraudulent academic credentials, Arday was appointed to a bewildering succession of positions, including, in 2018, a senior lectureship at the University of Roehampton before he had published a single academic paper; an associate professorship, two years later, at the University of Durham; a professorship, two years after that, at the University of Glasgow; and, finally, a year later, in 2023, a professorship at the University of Cambridge. In a mere five years, therefore, Arday went from an unpublished student to a Professor earning in excess of £100,000/per year at one of the highest ranked universities in the world. These positions, and the financial rewards and career benefits they brought Arday, should all have gone to academics with real degrees, who had conducted real research and written real books that made significant and, given the seniority and prestige of these posts, contributions to the field of sociology ranking with the best sociologists in the world. The third group of people defrauded by Jason Arday were the scholars whose dissertations, articles and books he plagiarised in his own, fraudulent academic work. It is sometimes hard for non-academic to understand the seriousness of plagiarism, particularly in an academic context. It means, first of all, that the plagiarist is unworthy of trust, and should never be allowed anywhere near an educational or pedagogical context in which they have authority over children, as Jason Arday was. But in more legal terms, plagiarism is theft. Academics have one form of capital, and it isn’t money. It is their intellectual property. Research, for an academic, is grabbed in the evenings they don’t spend with their wives or friends and the weekends of a professional life otherwise taken up by teaching, marking, and the growing administrative burden of the modern academic. Actually publishing an article or book typically requires the awarding of a grant sufficient to absent them from such work. When Jason Arday stole their work, he stole that grant, he stole those weekends, he stole those evenings, he stole their ideas. And by publishing their work as his own, he also stole the publishing opportunities and consequent career advancements denied to the plagiarised academics in favour of his fraudulent research. Again, Arday himself wasn’t only responsible for this fraud, and the editors and other people responsible for overseeing the integrity of academic and other scholarship are complicit in his defrauding of these plagiarised scholars. The fourth group of people defrauded by Jason Arday were the scholars who were not awarded the publishing contracts for books that were passed over for the garbage that Arday published. These included such titles as Dismantling Race in Higher Education: Racism, Whiteness and Decolonising the Academy, which was published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2018; Cool Britannia and Multi-Ethnic Britain: Uncorking the Champagne Supernova, which was published by Routledge in 2020, which is the sort of thing a hack like Owen Jones might write but is not consistent with a Professor of Sociology at Cambridge University; We See Things They'll Never See: Love, Hope and Neurodiversity, a sort of self-help book through pop songs published by Princeton University Press in 2025; and his memoir, Great and Unfortunate Things, which was published this year by Simon & Schuster, and which, again, is not the academic work expected and required of such a senior academic in such a prestigious institution. Again, Arday was not alone in defrauding genuine academics out of the book deals they were passed over for this tripe, and it’s indicative of the commercialisation of academia in the UK that academic positions are now awarded not on the academic worth of the candidate’s research but on the book sales of fluff like this that is paid for and promoted by publishers more interested in a DEI readership than in academic rigour. The fifth group of people defrauded by Jason Arday, and by far the most with a grievance against him, are his students. In the time he occupied these elevated academic positions, Arday would have taught, or occupied the position of teaching, thousands of students. They or their parents will have paid thousands of pounds each, up front or in the student debts they have accumulated, to be taught by someone unqualified to do so. Not only have they been defrauded out of their money, they have also been defrauded out of the education they paid for. For the rest of their lives, there will be a question, not least in their own head, of the value of the degree they were awarded studying under this fraud. If they themselves go on to be academics, their every job interview will have the shadow of his fraud hanging over them. Reports have now come out that numerous students did, indeed, complain about the lack of teaching they received from Jason Arday, and they were greeted with the same response that investigative journalists received when they researched the actual qualifications and academic and other claimed achievements of this fraud — that is, they were accused of racism. I sincerely hope that every student taught by Jason Arday pursues claims for the return of their fees and compensation for the loss of the education against every university at which he taught them; and I hope that these are sufficiently ruinous to bring these institutions down as a warning to other UK universities of the costs of being complicit in this fraud. Once again, charges should be brought against not only the universities whose purpose is to oversee academic excellence and not the enforcement of DEI policies of racial discrimination against White people, but also against the specific academics who created Jason Arday. That includes the thesis supervisors and examiners who passed his racist dribble, the heads of departments and schools who hired him, the board members of the DEI committees who promoted him, and all the other sycophants who celebrated his fraud. And, finally, the sixth group of people defrauded by Jason Arday is the British people. Arday sat on numerous charities, boards, committees and other DEI institutions not only funded by the British taxpayer but devoted to the erasure of British culture and the demographic replacement of the British people in our homeland. To this end, Arday was awarded numerous honorary doctorates, fellowships and academic awards and given a correspondingly wide public platform to spread his message of hate and racial discrimination against White people. Given the infiltration and indoctrination of every UK institution, of which the department of sociology at Jesus College, Cambridge University, is only one example among hundreds of thousands, and which includes our schools, councils, cultural institutions, media, police forces and law courts, it is highly unlikely that Jason Arday would have faced the prosecution and justice he deserved. UK courts have repeatedly made it clear that, if you’re Black, you can rape a White woman or stab a White man and received desultory and minimal sentences far lower than the White people who protest the rape or killing, and Jason Arday would have been treated no differently. It was the reporter who tried to investigate his fraud that was the object of a police investigation rather than Arday, and he would, at worst, have been sufficiently publicly disgraced that he couldn’t hold an academic post for a year or two before being awarded an even more lucrative and prestigious post at some US university devoted to the advancement of ‘scholars of colour’. I am not happy that Jason Arday took his own life. I wanted to him to face the full force of the law under UK legislation, and for him and those who aided and abetted his fraud to pay the costs in fines, prison sentences and institutional bankruptcy. I would also hope that his example would force a review of and removal from British public life of DEI criteria, which have never been written into any UK legislation but which have been enforced on the British people by every institution, business and employer in the UK. Arday is only one of tens of thousands of DEI hires who occupy senior positions in the public life of Britain who are also frauds, and who are committing the crime of fraud against the British people they have artificially and fraudulently been given authority over according to DEI criteria. As I said, I very much doubt that any due process, legal or otherwise, would have been implemented in what the UK has become; but now, with Arday’s suicide, any attempt to do so will be met from the woke-Left as a ‘desecration of his name’, etc. Jason Arday’s final crime, therefore, was committed against White people, who will continue to be subjected, after his death, to the unrelenting attacks on our race, our culture, our history, our identity, our values and our continued existence to which the fraudulent life of this Black criminal was dedicated. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, the media did not 'lynch' Jason Arday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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