D'Arcy O'Farrell

It is my sincerest conviction that Canadians should not live in fear of their government due to its relationship with the "cancellation" phenomenon.

[@freedomtoffend.com @likeDavyWatts]

For those who may not know the background: after nearly 15 years teaching at the University of Guelph-Humber, I was suspended and later terminated over an online comment supporting Israel and condemning Hamas.

That comment was made to an individual on another continent who had no affiliation with the university. It was not directed at a student, colleague, class, or campus community. Yet that individual apparently had friends or contacts at my university, and the matter was escalated into a disciplinary case against me.

The deeper issue, in my view, is the double standard. My accuser, I allege, had a long history of running Jews down in class and had posted hundreds — if not thousands — of antisemitic comments online, apparently with complete institutional impunity. Rather than confront that record, the university chose to treat me as the problem.

I know not everyone will care. Some people will avoid the subject. Some will change the subject. Some may even believe that condemning Hamas is itself grounds for professional punishment. But I also know there are people who still believe in due process, free expression, basic fairness, and the idea that a person should not lose a 15-year career through institutional double standards and reputational damage.

I am fighting what I believe was an unfair process marked by false allegations, inadequate representation, reputational harm, and professional damage.

A GoFundMe has been set up to assist with legal and advocacy costs connected to the case:

https://t.co/od6EtLxHmx

Thank you to everyone who has contributed, shared it, followed the story, or simply refused to look away.

[Peter Boghossian @peterboghossian]

Don't dogpile this guy. Thank him for being honest. He stated that he changed his mind and now understands that a woman cannot have a penis. We are in the beginning of a mass vehement denial where people deny they ever believed any of it. Reward honesty, esp about idiotic things.

[D'Arcy O'Farrell @DArcyOFarrell]

@likeDavyWatts Great point.

[@freedomtoffend.com @likeDavyWatts]

Anti-Zionism is advertised as a noble objection to nationalism.

Curious, then, how it never seems to abolish anyone else’s nation.

Not Pakistan. Not Jordan. Not Syria. Not Ukraine. Not Ireland.

Only the Jewish one.

At some point the mask stops being a mask and becomes a confession.

https://t.co/I8bjhqSJow

[Caryma Sa'd - Lawyer + Political Satirist @CarymaRules]

Months after Dave Perks was served with a cease and desist letter relating to defamatory statements about me and my videographer, he debuted a new series of sign boards titled “Jewish Zionists of Toronto,” choosing to include my videographer.

Although Jewish, my videographer has never discussed or debated politics with Perks, nor with any other protesters.

That context suggests “Zionist” is being used here as a slur rather than according to its actual meaning, intended to vilify targets by invoking antisemitic stereotypes and negative associations.

Please DM if you recognize anyone else featured on these signs who may wish to seek legal recourse.

📸 Jun 21, 2026

#Toronto #ProtestMania

[Shaun Maguire @shaunmmaguire]

The same way an avalanche is born of flake after flake of snow

Gently landing on a mountain’s slope

There is a social avalanche being primed in America

Instead of accumulating on a mountain’s slope, it grew in our universities

These people hate America and they have already indoctrinated your children

This is not a danger to be taken lightly, the snow is already packed

(HT @canarymission for the video)

[D'Arcy O'Farrell @DArcyOFarrell]

We can’t be considered a respectable country with this happening in our streets while facing no real pushback. If this is Canada, I’m not a proud Canadian, and I hold anyone who is in contempt. All Canadians should know that we should be better than this. Are we? I don’t know.

[Leviathan @l3v1at4an]

Toronto Jew hater David Perks has elevated his obsession with Jewish people by posting signage on Toronto sidewalks that just displays members of the Jewish community.

At least the Nazis kept their Jew lists to themselves rather than Toronto having them displayed in public.

[Vivian Bercovici @VivianBercovici]

Hey @MarkJCarney and @MarcMillerVM

You wanna deal with toxic, normalized Jew hatred? Or was that just the talking point of the day last week?

Here's a hot tip....it's everywhere.

[Meghan Murphy @MeghanEMurphy]

Just apologize.

You were all wrong, you were awful, apologize

[Vivian Bercovici @VivianBercovici]

If you give a fig about the future of 🇨🇦 or the US…..worth listening to this guy.

[D'Arcy O'Farrell @DArcyOFarrell]

@WayneMathison It just occurred to me that financial literacy probably looks more convincing when you consider where a lot of retirees would be without all that windfall home equity.

[D'Arcy O'Farrell @DArcyOFarrell]

@WayneMathison Absolutely

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

@sharrond62 They’ll never forgive us for being right, because they’d have to admit they embraced an idiotic, unevidenced delusion that caused widespread harm to women and children.

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

Oh, Canada.

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

So much support for socialism is rooted in flat-out economic ignorance. I find it fun to think through examples of this kind of thing sometimes.

Socialists are pretty diametrically opposed to profit. They see profit as proof of exploitation, that the "owning class" is extracting the surplus value of production for themselves and robbing, if not enslaving, the workers.

There are actually about a million good, common-sense, basic-economics arguments against this stupidity, for example that the owners deserve a (large) share of that surplus because they're shouldering all the risk and responsibility for the company, and this is sound. Most socialists are terrified to become owners, at the end of the day, because they know if it fails, it's all on them.

The profit motive, however, is the literally the magic sauce that unlocks abundance and a high standard of living. To walk through just one simple, real-life example, the profit motive strongly encourages cost-saving innovation (in addition to much else) while also solving the core socioeconomic question at the heart of every civilization: "how do you get people who don't care about each other to act like they care about each other's problems?" (Answer: the profit motive, which makes coming up with solutions to other people's problems, which you can sell, a matter of self-interest!)

Anyway, I got a notification on my phone from a huge corporation called Amazon earlier after my wife placed an order. It said I have until whatever time to add any items I want to the order so they'll arrive in the same shipment. This is actually new. It is an innovation that greatly increases efficiency.

Let's think it through together.

The simplest way to solve the order-to-shipment problem is to tie a shipment, which is ultimately a box or envelope, to an order number. Someone orders stuff on the app, an order number tied to those product choices is made, and a shipping container is later filled with those items and shipped.

This happens millions of times a day, an unfathomable number of times, actually, and it's very complicated. There's a huge inefficiency happening here, though, with this simple-minded, but complicated, order fulfillment scheme that any bonehead would think up and implement.

Sometimes, a customer will order stuff, and then later that same day, they will think of more stuff to order and will place another order. This might happen more than once in a day, in fact. It matches how people shop and think, especially when families share accounts. Each order is a new order number, and each order number is a new logistical train plus shipping materials and costs.

Amazon doesn't want to waste money shipping stuff, and their model (at least on Prime) is that shipping is virtually always included, which means wrapped up into the product costs across all products. If the same delivery location is ordering three times (or more) in the same day, it's something like one third the incurred shipping costs to put it all in one box and ship it only once.

The customer will also be happy with this and probably makes fun of the fact that Amazon doesn't automatically do it, as if there's just some guy happily filling orders in a logical, sensible way instead of a huge system fulfilling millions of orders a day in a very complicated way, where automation beats out "sensible" organization that an individual running a small operation might do.

That means there's an incentive to innovate on Amazon's end. They can innovate their logistics algorithm to identify multiple orders going to the same delivery address under the same account in a short period of time and consolidate them. I'm sure this wasn't a monumental programming challenge, but it was certainly a programming challenge. I can tell because of how new this feature is.

What makes this worth doing on Amazon's end is that they save money by doing it if it's cheaper to make and implement this consolidation algorithm and logistical chain than it is to ship according to a naive implementation, including errors generated by the new logistical system. By reducing costs at the same revenue, they generate profit, and the profit motive encourages them to do this in an economic way, not just a vague "right thing to do" way.

Notice that this situation is an improvement in all regards, if and only if it actually works. Amazon saves on shipping/delivery costs and materials, the customer gets fewer packages, there's less waste. The profit motive encourages AND REWARDS Amazon's executives to make decisions that remove a blatant inefficiency that doesn't actually benefit anyone but that is somewhat difficult to eliminate.

Do you understand this, young socialist idiot? It's actually really simple, and it doesn't depend on anyone having morals you think they should have in a situation you don't even understand.

But it gets a lot better.

I don't know how much in shipping and shipping materials, plus other overhead, Amazon saves by consolidating orders like this, but it's absolutely reasonable to guess it might be around a dollar per consolidation. It's actually probably more.

Amazon's executives could just pocket that whole saved dollar-per, but they probably won't. It's their right, but profit-driven economics tell them there's an even smarter way that's filled not just with winning, but win-winning, and even win-win-winning, or even win-win-win-winning. Let's take a look.

First, of course, they're not necessarily motivated to help other people win because they might just not care. The problem at the heart of every society, free or unfree, is that people aren't required to care about other people's problems and, beyond a certain line, can't be forced to. You cannot make them even with the most invasive socialist "ideological remolding" that's supposed to make them care about things they don't have any truly good reason to care about. If it's a matter of self-interest, though, they're CERTAIN to care about it, voluntarily, freely, and without anyone having to force them to do so or sending them to a standing-room-only prison dick-to-asscheek with some convict under Tiananmen Square because they did it wrong.

It is actually self-beneficial for Amazon's executives to spread that dollar (plus) in savings out over at least two or three domains or four.
Some of it goes in their pocket as more profit (win).
Some of it goes to the company itself to keep innovating in these ways, which eliminates unnecessary inefficiencies to everyone's benefits (win).
Some of it goes to lowering product costs so that everyone can obtain the same goods more cheaply because the product costs are absorbing shipping costs, which went down with this innovation (win) This will give them further market advantage and attract more customers, which includes making more products more accessible to more people with lower income (win).
Some of it also can go to employees who have their working morale increased because lower overhead allows the company to pay employees more (not less) while making MORE PROFIT at the same time (win). This allows them to attract and keep a better workforce that works better and harder, btw, willingly (win).

Notice how everything a young socialist ignoramus might care about gets checked off here by this profit-motive-driven innovation process.
-Lower costs
-Greater accessibility for lower income people
-Greater efficiency and less waste
-More capacity to pay employees more

The only thing our young socialist ignoramus doesn't like about it, in fact, is the part that makes it work: the profit for the owners part, maybe for one of two reasons. Maybe she doesn't like it because the owner is taking profit at all, as though owners shouldn't be rewarded (thus motivated) to make their enterprises better. A more reasonable socialist wouldn't like it because the executives (owners) would take proportionally more of the profit than other sectors, if they can, which is "unfair" if you don't understand anything.

That is, our young socialist ignoramus might think that it's wrong that the executives (who are few in number) split millions of dollars in freed-up profit while the other sectors (customers, employees, etc.) only get an almost negligible pittance that works out to cents. How unfair!

It's not unfair, though, because the executives are, in fact, few in number. If that dollar saved, times say a million instances per day, is split up 10% to executives (and shareholders...), 20% to reinvestment, 20% to employees, and 50% to price reduction, let's say, almost no one would think that's unfair, unreasonable, or greedy, but because there are a few execs, a hundred thousand employees or something, and tens of millions of products, the division will look exaggerated and "unfair" for the owners/execs in a naive analysis (which is what socialists always tend to do).

And that's where the risks and rewards of ownership come into the picture again to address this, if you're still stuck on the idea that it's somehow unfair that they've eliminated waste, increased efficiency, decreased costs, lowered prices, invested in further improvements, and paid people a little more to work for them and yet got to take a bit of concentrated profit for themselves for the trouble, which they didn't really have to do.

Speaking of that, why would they bother in the first place if the system they had was working well enough, despite the inefficiencies and related limitations?

Because they get to take home that little bit of extra profit that when concentrated is a lot of money and therefore a huge incentive for them to come up with and force implementation of challenging changes to make it work.

The story of an advanced society is that the thing we take for granted as an advanced society, the thing that makes life comfortable enough for socialists to have time to whine and demand socialism in their first-world entitlement, is only built because the profit motive is strong enough to motivate ambitious people to take the risks of building systems that deliver the first world to us.

Imagine starting an airline, for example. Your first plane is going to cost you about a hundred million dollars, and if it doesn't work, you're stuck with a hundred-million-dollar outlay that you have to get rid of after all your other losses. We have airlines because people took those risks and take those risks every day. Most of them fail, but some succeed not because of some deep unfairness but because what they built solves problems for people well enough such that people will pay a price that's a win-win for them.

This is the ONLY REASON we have nice things.

So, my dear young socialist. Calm down. Learn a little. You'll realize not only that the profit motive is correct but good, and you might even see ways you can capitalize upon it and become successful yourself without panhandling-by-proxy through the state apparatus and its guns and prison cells (you know, those things you say you're against).

[D'Arcy O'Farrell @DArcyOFarrell]

@PeterGazdik @paulg @fede_intern Teachable moment innit?

[D'Arcy O'Farrell @DArcyOFarrell]

@AnnaLeptikon @VisStephen I’m reading your tweets and praying for you. It’s terrible. I hope something good happens.

[Aristonkle @ParanoidPol]

This right here is the perfect encapsulation of why the train of thought embraced by Abdul, Zohran, and Hasan is totally disingenuous.

They say they're against antisemitism, but only a version of antisemitism they've defined themselves, one entirely separated from reality.

Their definition completely bifurcates Israel from Jews, as if the two have zero connection. It's the equivalent of saying you're fine with Catholics but wouldn't mind if the Illuminati nuked the Vatican.

The vast majority of Jews support Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state, and these three have done a lot to reinforce why. Political Zionism was correct in its early assumption that Jews needed a place to go to avoid exactly the scenario now unfolding because of what these people espouse.

They keep saying they're "against antisemitism," but it's a leftist definition of antisemitism that only they and their tokens agree on. They dismiss anyone who believe differently while using those same tokens as both sword and shield. At this point, it's basically a trope.

[Martin Pelletier @MPelletierCIO]

Well, that’s calling it like it is. Maybe us asset owners need to show more compassion for younger generations who don’t have the same opportunities we did. Let’s start there