Laura W.

Daughter, wife, mother.

[Gad Saad @GadSaad]

The only thing that stops violent men from raping you and your society are other men who are equally willing to be violent in stopping the rapists. The West has decided that the highest virtue is to quietly comply with the destruction of your civilization because to do otherwise is bigoted toward the rapists. It really is that simple.

[Razor Oil @RazorOil]

The wild thing about punishing Canadian bitumen producers with a carbon tax is that they produce the heaviest oil on Earth, a product used in unique and essential applications ranging from jet fuel on the lighter end to asphalt roads and roof shingles on the heavier end.

We have no real alternatives to asphalt, shingles, or many other heavy-oil applications, regardless of what anyone drives, EVs or ICE vehicles....

Extracting this bitumen requires significantly more energy, and therefore more emissions,than producing lighter oils, much like how BBQ propane flows easily from a reservoir while asphalt demands far more effort to produce.
Think about lifting a young child vs. an adult, would you need more energy?

Even if you fracture a hockey-puck-like piece of bitumen, it still won’t flow to the surface without thermal energy to melt it and allow production.

At what point did we stop making sense and started punishing companies simply for extracting a viable, in-demand product that virtually everyone relies on in daily life, just because it’s heavy and takes more energy to produce?

Labeling it “dirty” to satisfy our biases ignores the fundamental reasons we need this oil in the first place. Also, why don't we start calling heavy ppl "dirty", same logic. Heavy oil is just that, heavy... and needs more energy to be produced.🫡🪒

[Jeff Berube @ABJeffBerube]

That’s not even close to the whole story. For most of us, one, two, three, or even ten pipelines changes nothing.

When oil crashed in 2014, the industry had tens of thousands of layoffs. The province was hurting but there were signs of hope: Northern Gateway, Energy East, and TMX.

Northern Gateway had its approval cancelled by Trudeau.

Energy East was cancelled because Ottawa wanted to count upstream and downstream emissions, which put the project on shaky ground.

But the coup de grace came when Québec’s prime minister at the time, François Legault said that there was “no social acceptability for a pipeline.”

TC cancelled it shortly after.

Finally, we fought over TMX because Ottawa wouldn’t assert its jurisdiction.

Trudeau let Horgan and BC make it so risky to try to build TMX that Kinder Morgan had to pull out.

Nobody wanted the federal government to buy the pipeline, they should have simply enforced the conditions to ensure it was safe for Kinder Morgan to proceed.

Albertans had stayed quiet for a long time over equalization because Ottawa was staying out of our faces, so it was just the price to pay to operate in this country.

But when came time to help Alberta after the oil crash, the whole nation turned its back on us and proceeded to crush the three beacons of hope we were counting on to turn the corner.

That’s when a lot of us started paying closer attention to politics to figure out how to get our voices heard.

It didn’t take very long before we started looking at seats in the House of Commons and the Senate and realizing how unequal and unfair our representation is in Ottawa.

Bottom line is that we’re effectively screwed and that the people we subsidize through equalization continuously vote for governments that attack our industry.

Fixing the constitutional mess is impossible because it would require either Ontario or Québec and all the maritime provinces to vote in favour of curtailing their own political power. It will never happen.

In 2019, we figured that Canada was going to be smart enough to realize that Trudeau was a disaster and we’d get back some common sense.

Wrong. Trudeau was voted in for a second time.

If you were in the oil and gas industry at the time, you probably had your first taste of western alienation with the Wexit movement instantly polling above 30% in support of independence.

Next up is covid and that’s when all hell broke loose with the spending, the OIC to prohibit common guns, etc.

Albertans’ living standards were the most impacted by Trudeau and now Carney’s insane deficit spending.

We watched as Trudeau pranced around on the world stage, virtue-signalling with our money while the cost of living was sky rocketing.

In FY 2024-2025, we watched the Liberals send $13B abroad between gender equality and climate change foreign aid, while running a $36.3B deficit.

We had one last hope with Pierre looking like he was going to get elected and stop the bleeding. But they parachuted Carney in and the rest is history.

The country’s finances are in shambles and it would take 3 generations to fix this mess if we started today by doing the obvious, which Ottawa is still refusing to do.

Ottawa is fiscally irresponsible and now headed down a very dangerous path of authoritarianism with all the bills that were passed in this parliamentary session.

Alberta independence supporters see the writing on the wall and don’t care about any number of pipelines.

Once you’ve looked close enough at the system, you realize it can’t be fixed and there’s no coming back from realizing the true extent of the mess Canada is in.

The Canada we grew up in doesn’t exist anymore. It is a sinking ship and independence is the only way to save Alberta.

[Mark Dietz @MarkDietzinAB]

🇨🇦Alberta Tried🇨🇦

A friend of mine wrote a book a few years ago.
It was about separating from Canada...
reluctantly.

Separatists do not hate Canada. They lament the loss of it. We have tried to save it for ten years to no avail. We were pleading with people in 2019 to wake up and get rid of this menace ideologue, Justin Trudeau, quickly before it was too late because we saw what was coming.

And now with the country in shambles, people point to us as the bad guys.

We are not the bad guys.

If you voted for Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney, you are the bad guys.

You voted for your nation's demise.

The globalist talons are now locked so deeply into Canada that it cannot be saved.

Sadly, Pierre Poilievre waited one election cycle too long and now he can't save it.

The only thing he can do if elected is put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.

Wanting to jump from a sinking ship is not a traitorous act. It's self-preservation and it's preserving the future for the next generations to come.

All of you pretend patriots wrapping yourself in the flag should be ashamed of yourselves.

It is the duty of all citizens to educate themselves and cast a vote based on facts rather than feelings...or who the government tells you to hate.

Canada is not gone because of Alberta separatists or Canadian Conservatives.

It's gone because the left took it from us.

#AlbertaIndependence 🤠

[Andrew Côté @Andercot]

Let's consult the historical record to see what the Aztec society was up to when the Spanish conquered it.

First, from Cortes:

“They have a most horrid and abominable custom which truly ought to be punished and which until now we have seen in no other part, and this is that, whenever they wish to ask something of the idols, in order that their plea may find more acceptance, they take many girls and boys and even adults, and in the presence of the idols they open their chests while they are still alive and take out their hearts and entrails and burn them before the idols, offering the smoke as sacrifice. Some of us have seen this, and they say it is the most terrible and frightful thing they have ever witnessed… not one year passes in which they do not kill and sacrifice some fifty persons in each temple; and this is done and held as customary… not one year has passed… in which three or four thousand souls have not been sacrificed in this manner.”

And now Bernal Diaz del Castillo:

“The dismal drum of Huichilobos sounded again, accompanied by conches, horns and trumpet-like instruments. It was a terrifying sound, and when we looked at the tall cue [temple] from which it came we saw our comrades who had been captured in Cortes’ defeat being dragged up the steps to be sacrificed. When they had hauled them up to a small platform in front of the shrine where they kept their accursed idols we saw them put plumes on the heads of many of them; and they made them dance with a sort of fan in front of Huichilobos. Then after they had danced the papas [priests] laid them down on their backs on some narrow stones of sacrifice and, cutting open their chests, drew out their palpitating hearts which they offered to the idols before them.”

...

“Every day we saw sacrificed before us three, four or five Indians whose hearts were offered to the idols and their blood plastered on the walls, and their feet, arms and legs of the victims were cut off and eaten… Every wall of this chapel and the whole floor, had become almost black with human blood, and… the stench was worse than in a Spanish slaughter-house.”

...

“When we arrived at the great market place, called Tlaltelolco, we were astounded at the number of people and the quantity of merchandise that it contained… Let us begin with the dealers in gold, silver, and precious stones, feathers, mantles, and embroidered goods. Then there were other wares consisting of Indian slaves both men and women; and I say that they bring as many of them to that great market for sale as the Portuguese bring negroes from Guinea…. They brought some of them tied to long poles by means of collars around their necks so they would not escape, and others left loose.”

~~

This is what the Spanish conquered in the name of Christendom - a Stone-Age society consumed with ritualistic human sacrifice, cannibalism and slavery.

[tobi lutke @tobi]

Self recommending must-read for Canadians.

“The path Canada is on, economically and culturally, is no longer sufficient to make us a flourishing world class nation.”

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Je crois qu'on ne mesure pas ce qu'Elon Musk est en train de construire avec X.

Tous les médias de l'histoire ont été couplés à une culture, une langue, une bulle géographique. Le Monde parle aux Français. Le NYT parle aux Américains. NHK parle aux Japonais. Chaque média filtre le réel à travers le prisme de sa culture locale.

X est en train de devenir le premier média de l'humanité. Pas d'un pays. De l'espèce.

Je le vis en temps réel. Mes posts en français se font RT par des Japonais, répondre par des Brésiliens, citer par des Américains. Des conversations qui n'auraient jamais existé il y a 5 ans. Un libertarien français qui débat avec un ingénieur de Tokyo et un entrepreneur de Sao Paulo sous le même tweet. Pas traduit par un éditeur. Traduit instantanément par l'IA, en un clic.

Les bulles de filtre culturelles sont en train d'exploser.

Et je pense qu'on sous-estime massivement les effets composés de ça.

Quand une idée peut traverser un océan en 3 secondes, quand un argument sourcé posté à Paris peut être vérifié par un économiste à Singapour et amplifié par un développeur à Austin dans la même heure, le coût de propagation d'une bonne idée tend vers zéro.

Et c'est catastrophique pour un type d'acteur très précis : les médias qui ont construit leur business model sur le monopole de l'information locale. Ceux qui pouvaient raconter n'importe quoi sur "ce qui se passe ailleurs" parce que personne ne pouvait vérifier.

Quand un journaliste français écrit que "le modèle américain ne marche pas", maintenant il y a 50 Américains dans les réponses avec des sources. Quand un éditorialiste dit que "le Danemark prouve que le socialisme fonctionne", il y a un Danois qui explique que le Danemark est 10e en liberté économique mondiale.

Le fact-checking n'est plus un département. C'est un effet réseau.

Les médias honnêtes n'ont rien à craindre de ça. Les médias qui vendaient une narration protégée par l'ignorance géographique de leur audience vont avoir un problème existentiel.

Parce qu'on ne peut plus mentir à l'échelle locale quand le monde entier regarde.

[Nick Osmond-Jones 🇨🇦 @Nick_Decap]

I just came upon something remarkable. It is a speech made in the BC Legislature in 2016. The House is about to unanimously pass a bill to add gender identity and expression in to the Human Rights Code. It has unanimous, bipartisan support. Members from the BC ruling Liberals and the opposition NDP are all congratulating themselves on how progressive they are. Then Liberal MLA Laurie Throness takes the floor. Below is his speech in full:

It’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 27 today. I want to thank the government for allowing me to speak. This is a freedom afforded by our B.C. Liberal coalition that might not be available in some parties across Canada, so I’m grateful. And, of course, my views are my own and not those of the government.I want everyone to know that I respect and appreciate all British Columbians, no matter their gender expression or sexual orientation. I certainly wouldn’t want to discriminate against anyone in matters of employment and tenancy and the other grounds enumerated in the B.C. human rights code.

Because the House is unanimous in this respect, it’s difficult for me to share some concerns that I have with this bill, and greater societal concerns as well. So today, I suppose, I’m testing not the tolerance of this House for the transgender community but the tolerance of this House for me and for people like me.

I have a few problems with the bill, and I want to explain myself in a thoughtful way. In the bill before us, we have a new category added — that of gender identity and expression. It was formerly subsumed under the category of sexual orientation, but this bill will lift it from that place to be given its own explicit category in law. I would point out that this has not been done for any other group. This is the only one. First Nations people, whose vulnerable children are committing suicide at a terrible rate, are not named in the law. One might think that vulnerable elderly people are often discriminated against, but they remain hidden under the category of age. One might specify certain races or religions or ethnicities. I can think of many disabilities, say of developmental delay, or perhaps impairment of sight or hearing or some other impairment, who must experience discrimination as well. But the government has named only one group.Taking this unusual step may well open up the door to other demands, and why would we not assent to others if we want to be fair to everyone? There are many vulnerable groups in society, not only transgender people, who may lay equal claim to special mention in the code.

As a matter of law, this bill is unnecessary. The government has steadfastly maintained in this chamber for years that gender identity and expression are already covered under the category of sexual orientation, so this bill is not about further protection of rights. Nevertheless, to my mind, the elevation of gender identity and expression is not window dressing. It has great symbolic and political import. If it meant nothing, it would not have been requested. In my opinion, this special recognition reflects the strong and growing political influence of the LGBT community.

Transgendered people are a vulnerable group, for sure. But in a paradoxical way, they are also very powerful. Indeed, in this bill, they have turned around an entire government, caused it to do an about-face on a policy the government has stood on principle against for years.There are various indications of power we could turn to. When the White House is bathed in rainbow colours, it’s not a symbol of weakness but of strength. Look at Vancouver or Toronto’s pride parade. These are all displays of power. Politicians and academics, human rights tribunals, the public service, LGBT organizations and the media — all these elements of society are ready to descend on the head of any offender, wielding two great weapons of shame and condemnation at the mere rumour of discrimination or even if someone refuses to applaud.

The people of Steinbach found this out a few weeks ago, when some local politicians declined to walk in the first pride parade. They didn’t attack or even criticize. They just withdrew. About 5,000 people quickly arrived in the town for a celebratory parade, but it was also a massive, pointed rebuke to the inhabitants, backed up, of course, by an ever-compliant and uncritical media. The movement would brook no difference of opinion in Steinbach. I thought the whole thing was in rather bad form.

After a generation of demanding and receiving tolerance, I wonder if the now-powerful LGBT movement is very tolerant of difference in this country. Closer to home, Trinity Western University wanted to keep its sexual ethic, an ethic that’s 2,000 years old and practised by a billion people around the world. Trinity didn’t criticize or attack anyone. It just wanted to withdraw from certain behaviours. But lawyers rejected Trinity Western’s law school, even though section 41 of the very code before us today states that it is not discrimination for a religious or social group to prefer its own. It seems that the B.C. human rights code, as well as a global religion, are of little consequence when they conflict with the values of this powerful movement.

I’m always protective of the public interest, the collective welfare of all British Columbians. Certainly, the LGBT community is a legitimate interest, but it’s not the only one. I don’t care if it’s a Christian or some other religious group, an industry or a powerful business lobby or a rich person or an insistent organization. When some person or group becomes irresistible to the government, when the government can no longer say no to them, I get uncomfortable with that, because if government ever aligns itself with any partial or private interest rather than the public, someone else’s interest is going to suffer.

Moving on, not only the category of gender identity but also the category of sexual orientation is added to section 42 of this bill, which are not defensive provisions. They’re about positive action in employment equity programs and programs designed to ameliorate their condition. They didn’t need to be added, either, I’m told. They were already protected through decisions of the courts. Employment equity means preferential hiring in the public service. Until now, B.C. has only given First Nations employment equity programs. We can now expect the LGBT community to ask for preferential hiring throughout the public service.Then there are programs of amelioration. What programs might be designed? Well, they’ve been suggested by the speaker before me. Off of the top of my head, I can think of programs in schools, school curricula, building codes, government communications. The list goes on.

Really, anything is possible. Inclusion of the terms “gender identity” and “expression” is a political statement to be followed by requests for programs of employment equity and amelioration. The government wouldn’t add the terms if it didn’t intend to follow through and put them in place, so for sure we can expect them. Indeed, the member for Vancouver-Kensington has already begun by calling for provincewide programs, so this is just the jumping-off point. To sum up this point, I don’t really think this bill is about protection, because transgendered people have always been protected in the B.C. human rights code. This is not about protection as much as it is about the programs that will flow from this special recognition.

This leads me to my main concern. I want to move on to talk for a moment about the content of the programs to come and how they might affect people, particularly children, youth and impressionable people. This is my opinion. There are two alternatives — two logical alternatives — regarding gender. There is the view of gender fluidity. The transgender movement is predicated on this belief, that gender is fluid, that in some cases one’s gender does not match one’s biology and a person must therefore transition their body to more closely resemble their true gender, often by altering their bodily characteristics in a number of ways. This can be a long and painful journey. That’s one view.

There are many in this province who take a different view of gender, a fixed view. This view would say that while there is a reasonable range of natural variation, where a man may be more feminine or woman more masculine, gender is not divorced from one’s biology. It remains rooted in a person’s sex characteristics, and there is a natural psychic attachment to one’s biological self which, of course, is internal and can never be changed. That bond is very difficult to break. Therefore, biology is destiny. Gender is broadly consonant with one’s biology, and how we were born is who we are meant to be.

This is a legitimate position to take, and I believe it to be true. For me and thousands of my own constituents, this position is rooted in Christian faith. I might, for example, quote the following passage from the Book of Psalms where David is talking to God, and he says: “For you formed my inward parts. You knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works. My soul knows it very well. ”Parents might read this verse to their children and assure them: “You are wonderful and wonderfully made. You are beautiful just the way you are. Your gender and your biology are not an accident; they go together. There is meaning and value and purpose in the way you were made, so rest in who you are. Accept and be content with your body. Rejoice in the fact that you are a boy or a girl. Celebrate your womanhood or your manhood.”

I’m informed by my faith on this matter, but that isn’t necessary. You don’t have to be religious to give this message to your kids. I think this is a positive, healthy message that many parents, religious or not, would like to teach their children and would like their children to be taught in school, because children are, by definition, immature and impressionable. Their developing self-concept might be swayed by suggestions that cast doubt on the stability of their own gender, and they could make premature decisions that they would not otherwise have made that could drastically alter their lives, some in hurtful ways.

To me, who takes the fixed-gender approach, the message of self-acceptance is the healthiest message we can deliver to children, youth and impressionable people. However, today, in this bill, I’m concerned that our government is symbolically aligning itself with a partial interest that takes only the other view. Any programs designed to encourage greater acceptance of transgender people may be informed only by them, as a sort of societal project.

As a recent editorial in the Huffington Post said: “It’s time we stopped trying to fix transgender people. It’s time to fix society.” Programs might, therefore, assume, imply or even assert that gender is a fluid concept, suggest that everyone’s gender may be in question, that people should explore different lifestyles and look deep within and finally make a decision to embark on that difficult journey. Many parents I know would be distressed if their children were exposed to these suggestions, and some children could eventually experience harm. I think parents should be free to advise and encourage their children to love and accept their bodies, including their birth gender, and they should have the option to choose institutions that support that belief.

As I said in the beginning, the beauty of democracy is that we can believe different things. Or can we? I have some questions. My first question is for the LGBT community. Now that the movement has arrived, now that its view dominates in our society, is it mature enough to tolerate difference, or will it brook no dissent, no other view?

My question for my own government, which I’m proud to support, is this. Will parents be able to send their children or young and impressionable people to an institution that supports the acceptance of one’s birth gender, or will government take a monolithic approach that supports the concept of gender fluidity alone?

In fact, the questions I have just asked are the very kinds of questions the LGBT community asked of society decades ago. Is society mature enough to tolerate the LGBT movement? Can there be more than one view, or must society be monolithic? Do our feelings matter? Society certainly answered the LGBT movement in the affirmative. Today the shoe has been firmly and formally placed on the other foot. How will, now, the LGBT movement deal with difference now that its view dominates? This, I would assert, is a test of maturity, it’s a test of democracy, it’s a test of liberty, and it is a test of character. I can tell you that there would be distress concerning this matter among thousands of parents, hundreds of churches and independent schools and other organizations around the province if they had no input on this question.

Politics these days is so driven by feelings. Everyone has feelings. Transgender people have feelings, and I want to be sensitive to them, but so do others — good and reasonable people, salt-of-the-earth people, not people who hate anyone or who would want to discriminate against others but people who feel genuinely concerned about this. They are just as much a part of the province as anyone else, and they, too, are worthy of respect.

I have wrestled hard with how I’m going to vote on this bill. I have decided that the most accurate way to represent my feelings is to abstain from voting. I don’t want to vote against anyone’s rights, but neither can I support what I think threatens to be the entrenchment of the fluidity of gender. So I’m asking the government, as it moves forward with programming, to be sensitive to the beliefs of everyone in B.C. We need a balanced approach to offer concerned parents and other leaders options for the content of government policies and programs directed toward children, youth and impressionable people.We are all British Columbians. Everyone’s view is important. We all deserve to be heard.

Finally, I want to end on a positive note. The member for Vancouver–West End is rejoicing today, and I want to congratulate him and our friends in the gallery who are with us. I want to affirm all British Columbians, including gay, lesbian, bi and transgender people, and those who are not quite sure yet. You, too, are wonderful and wonderfully made. Your biology is beautiful. You bear the majestic and noble image of God most high, and your life has meaning and purpose. However you have chosen to express yourself, may grace and peace be with you.

[Peter St Onge, Ph.D. @profstonge]

You don't get social peace unless you're willing to permanently incarcerate -- or eliminate -- the worst 1% of society.

[Encyclopaedia Britannica @Britannica]

Plot twist: 67 was a mathematically significant number long before it became a meme.

Here’s what makes it cool:

It is a prime number (can only be divided by itself and 1). But it’s not just ANY prime number. 🧵⬇️

[Anish Moonka @anishmoonka]

Went down the rabbit hole on this one. The answer is actually wild.

5,000 years ago, Sumerian merchants in modern-day Iraq needed a number that's easy to divide. They picked 60. It has 12 divisors (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, 60). Base-10 only has four. That's 3x as many ways to split something evenly, which matters when you're dividing grain and wages and can't handle repeating decimals.

The counting method is the best part. They used their thumb as a pointer on the three bone segments of each finger. Four fingers, three segments, that's 12 per hand. Track multiples of 12, on the other hand, and you hit 60. No pen needed. Merchants in parts of Asia still count this way today.

The system spread from Sumer to the Babylonians, then eastward to Persia, India, and China, and westward to Egypt and Rome. By 1800 BC, Babylonian students were using base-60 to calculate the square root of 2 to six decimal places on clay tablets. One student's homework from 4,000 years ago, now at Yale, holds the most accurate computation found anywhere in the ancient world. The Greeks adopted it for astronomy, which locked it into navigation, cartography, and eventually clocks in the 14th century.

People have tried to kill it. During the French Revolution in 1793, France mandated decimal time: 10 hours per day, 100 minutes per hour, 100 seconds per minute. New clocks, new laws, the whole thing. Lasted 17 months. Workers hated getting one day off every ten days instead of one every seven. They tried again in 1897. Scrapped by 1900. The metric system replaced feet and pounds across most of the world. But 60 minutes in an hour? Untouchable.

60 is just too good at being divided. You can split an hour into halves, thirds, quarters, fifths, sixths, tenths, twelfths, or twentieths and land on a whole number every time. Try that with 100, and you get ugly decimals for thirds, sixths, and most common splits. 5,000 years of civilizations looked at that math and came to the same conclusion: 60 wins.

[Brad Wall @BradWall306]

They've even invented a term for it to help it present better - like a realistic and fair trade-off for the privilege of being a part of this federation: 'asymmetrical federalism'

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Wilberforce, and people like him, ended the global slave trade that had existed for several thousand years.

They didn’t invent it, but they did stop it.

I should say almost entirely. There are still remnants of it in some parts of the world.

[Laura W. @laewier]

@Chesedgirl I had my first at 30, 18 months later had my second, 23 months later had my third and my fourth 32 months later at age 36. If I could do it again I would try give at least 2 years between deliveries, mostly for my recovery. Focus on keeping your health and fitness up :)

[Melanie In Saskatchewan @saskatchewan_in]

Dear @liberal_party government,

I heard your announcement about topping up the GST rebate to help with food inflation, and I want you to understand something right away.

It did not make me feel helped. It made me feel dismissed.

Because this is the pattern now. Every time your poll numbers slip, every time the Prime Minister embarrasses himself, every time the public starts asking uncomfortable questions, out comes the same solution. More cheques. It is like you believe Canadians are toddlers who stop crying when you shake loose change at them.

But groceries are not expensive because Canadians forgot how to budget. They are expensive because of policy. And that is the part you refuse to talk about.

Food inflation in Canada is not just “global forces.” It is also built into our system. We have carbon taxes on fuel, transport, fertilizer and processing. We have fuel regulations that quietly raise costs every year. We have a dairy supply management system that legally forces Canadians to overpay for milk, butter and cheese so a protected industry mostly in Ontario and Quebec can stay profitable. We have trade barriers that limit competition. We have massive regulatory costs on farmers and food processors. We have a government that keeps adding cost, then pretends to be shocked when prices go up.

And instead of fixing any of that, you send out a rebate and call it compassion. Do you see how insulting that feels? It is like you broke my window, then handed me a towel to weather the rainstorm.

If you were serious about food affordability, you would do the hard things.
* You would reform supply management.
*You would stop layering climate policy onto food production without considering the price impact.
* You would reduce regulatory costs instead of pretending they are invisible.
* You would actually measure whether your policies are making food more expensive.
But that would require admitting that government can be part of the problem. So instead, you throw money at the symptom and protect the cause.

And let us talk about trust for a second. You say no oversight is needed because this is urgent. You say no transparency is needed because this is compassionate. You say no accountability is needed because this is about helping people.

But Canadians have watched what happens when you spend without oversight. SDTC. ArriveCan. Billions lost, misused, or handed to friends. No consequences. No claw-backs. No real answers. So now you want us to believe this time will be different. This time the money will fix the problem. This time it will not be wasted. This time it will not disappear. This time it will not be used to buy political loyalty.

But here is the truth. Money is not a solution when government policy is the cause. It is just a distraction. You are asking taxpayers to fund the damage done by your own decisions, instead of changing those decisions. That is not leadership. That is political damage control. And Canadians are tired of being treated like a PR problem instead of a policy problem.

We do not need another rebate. We need a government that stops making food more expensive in the first place. Respectfully, stop tossing cheques at the mess you created and calling it help. Fix the system.
@brucefanjoy @anitavandenbeld @FP_Champagne @MarkJCarney @PierrePoilievre @CPC_HQ

[Scott Carpenter 🇨🇦🇺🇸🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @ScottRCarpenter]

They called Canada the world’s first post national state with no core identity.

They trampled their own citizens with horses and debanked them for protesting their draconian “health” policies.

Then they illegally used the emergencies act to crush them.

They have gradually shut down our resource based economy and made life unaffordable for vast swaths of the population.

They have driven food bank use through the roof with their inflationary monetary policies.

They flooded our country with millions of immigrants (many of whom dislike the native population) and drove the price of housing sky high.

They allowed Chinese police stations to operate within our borders.

They allowed Chinese political actors to intimidate our citizens and meddle in our elections. And now they want a “trade deal” that brings us even closer to an adversary we can’t defend ourselves against.

They neutered our military, put tampons in the men’s room and put a woman in charge who cries publicly about how terrible we are.

Now they want to disarm us and throw us in jail for quoting scripture.

But they “Choose Canada”.

The truth is the Liberals abandoned Canada and its citizens long ago.

Their patriotism is fake and based on nothing more than a fear of orange man bad. The moment Trump is gone they’ll simply finish the job they started ten years ago.

They hate Canada. And they hate you. Only a brainwashed moron would believe otherwise.

[Jo Bhakdi @JOBhakdi]

Not sure if Trump is consciously playing 5D Chess, or just accidentially - but he definitely IS.

1. Greenland is not for sale and Denmark is likely not going to cave.

2. If they do, US gets Greenland = wins.

3. But if they DON'T, the US also wins. Here is why:

The great crisis of the West is less the result of a conspiracy, or suicidal / genocidal empathy, and more a function of simple degeneracy.

Civilizational degeneracy, when reduced to its first principle, occurs when societies lose their will to win.

If you don't want to win, why not open the borders? Why not become climate delulus? Why not dismantle your industrial base and blow up your power plants?

None of this matters if you don't want to win. You just lose - so what?

So what do you do with allies who don't want to win? You turn it back on them:

The FASTEST way to force countries to stop being degenerates is to start taking over their territory.

You want wokeness? DEI? Open borders? Destroy your economy? Friday for Future?

Sure - you can have it. But we will take Greenland. And then Scotland. And then Belgium. And every other country that doesn't want to win. And since you are degenerate, you won't do nothing about it.

THAT'S the true genius of this move.

Now, I personally believe that Denmark is not THAT degenerate - we will see - and in the course of this exercise will revive its will to win, which is all it takes to prevent this.

With some luck, others will follow and we see a great turnaround.

Either way, Trump wins:

he either gets Greenland and probably the rest of Europe shortly thereafter, or he turns his degenerate allies into countries that want to win again - which is even better.

5D Chess.

[Martin Sellner @MartinSellner_]

What we are witnessing today is the largest ethno-cultural upheaval in Europe since the arrival of the Yamnaya around 5,000 years ago.

They laid the foundation of the European tribes and, ultimately, modern European nations.

Since then, there has been an unbroken chain of ethno-cultural continuity. All foreign invasions, from the Huns to the Ottomans to the Moors, were ultimately repelled.

Today, within just a few decades, this chain is being broken. The people living in huge parts of Europe, France, Germany, England, and Italy in 100 years will not be the descendants of those who lived there 100 years earlier.

This has never happened in the last 5,000 years.

So forgive me if I don’t care whether someone calls me racist or whether a leftist judge claims we should be banned.

Far more is at stake than a delusional anti-white universalism. That ideology is only a few decades old and will fade away.

What must endure is resistance to this threat. Every people deserves an identity, a culture, and a homeland. I want to take nothing from anyone. I simply want to live this life and pass it on.

If you think that makes me evil, then that makes you evil.

[Laura W. @laewier]

Having worked in this industry, this is absolutely 100% the business consultant manifesto…

[Peter Girnus 🦅 @gothburz]

The company hired me to lead their "Agile Transformation."
I don't know what Agile means.
Nobody does.
That's why it works.

I make $425,000 a year.
To move sticky notes.
From left to right.
On a board.
The board is digital now.
The sticky notes cost $80,000 in Jira licenses.
Progress.

Day one, I said "we need to break down silos."
Everyone nodded.
Silos are bad.
I don't know why.
But destroying them is a career.
My career.

I introduced "squads."
Squads are teams.
But disrupted.
We disrupted the teams into teams.
Different names.
Same people.
Same problems.
But Agile problems now.
Agile problems are strategic.

A senior engineer asked what we're actually changing.
I said, "The mindset."
He asked what that means.
I said, "It's a journey."
He asked where we're going.
I said, "Toward agility."
He asked what agility means.
I pointed at the sticky notes.
They were moving left to right.
That's velocity.
We have velocity now.

The VP of Engineering said two-week sprints don't fit their work.
I said, "That's waterfall thinking."
Waterfall is bad.
Like silos.
I don't know what waterfall is.
But I know it's bad.
She stopped talking.
Waterfall accusations end conversations.

We had a retrospective.
In the retro, we discussed what went wrong.
Everything went wrong.
We put it on sticky notes.
Then we moved the sticky notes.
Into a column called "Parking Lot."
The Parking Lot is where problems go to die.
It's full.
We don't look at it.
That's agile.

Velocity is up 40%.
I defined velocity.
I also defined the points.
I also defined the stories.
We're crushing it.
At the things I made up.
To measure.
Ourselves.

The CEO asked for ROI.
I showed a chart.
The chart went up.
Charts should go up.
This one did.
I didn't label the Y-axis.
Nobody asked.
Leadership is confidence.

We do standups now.
Every day.
We stand.
For 45 minutes.
Standing is agile.
Sitting is waterfall.
My legs hurt.
But we're transforming.

The transformation is now "Phase 3."
Phase 1 was assessment.
Phase 2 was implementation.
Phase 3 is "continuous improvement."
Continuous means forever.
Forever means job security.
I'm very secure.

My contract was extended.
Three more years.
For "cultural impact."
The culture is confused.
But impacted.

Agile transformation isn't about being agile.
It's about transforming.
Continuously.
Toward more transformation.
The destination is the journey.
The journey is billable.

[vittorio @IterIntellectus]

the thing about calling DEI 'economic genocide' is that it undersells it

yes, young White men were systematically excluded from careers during their peak marriage years, but that's just first-order effects.

second-order: marriage market collapse. women date across and up. men without careers become invisible to the women who would have married them and disappear. the "eligible bachelor" pool shrinks.

third-order: fertility crisis. fewer marriages, fewer children. but it's worse than just men not marrying or having families. the women who "won" the DEI lottery got careers instead of families, delayed fertility until it was too late. DEI attacked family formation from both sides, excluded men from provider roles AND diverted women from their fertility window. everyone lost.

fourth-order: psychological. young men couldn't even name what was happening to them. the same institutions that excluded them told them they were "privileged", that complaining was proof of weakness. so they internalized failure as personal inadequacy rather than systemic rigging, retreated into depression, video games, porn. the symptoms we then pathologized as "male failure". the system broke them (on purpose) and blamed them for being broken.

fifth-order: institutional trust gone. once you know positions are filled by demographics rather than competence, every credential becomes suspect (if not a priori worthless). is your doctor qualified or a diversity hire? your pilot? your engineer? you can't prove any individual is incompetent, but you can't trust any individual is competent either. medicine skepticism, academic failure, media skepticism, none of this emerged organically. it was manufactured by the DEI hire you can't be sure is qualified to treat you.

sixth-order: reality became unspeakable. noticing any of this was a fireable offense. pointing out the obvious got you called a bigot, deplatformed or fired. pure totalitarian censorship and the problem couldn't even be acknowledged (until now, finally)
men knew they were being cheated but couldn't say it. women sensed something was wrong with the men but couldn't identify it. relationships poisoned by a dynamic neither party could name.

seventh-order: the feedback loop. fewer eligible men means more women competing for a shrinking pool, more women losing the marriage market, more resentment, more "men are trash", more support for DEI, fewer eligible men and the system accelerates itself.

and the worst part is that DEI was just the economic arm. the same people and institutions pushed the complete package
"toxic masculinity" to pathologize male identity
"the future is female" as explicit zero-sum framing delusion
"believe all women" to weaponize trust against men
"men are trash" to normalize open contempt
a coordinated ideological assault on family formation.

and it even had a business model. HR departments exploded (millions of jobs invented to administer the regime). DEI consultants became a multi-billion dollar industry. politicians got voting blocs dependent on racial grievance. established boomers kept their positions while their competition was eliminated.

the architects knew what they were doing
you don't accidentally build a system that specifically targets men during peak marriage years, tells them they deserve it, makes it unspeakable to complain, attacks their identity as toxic, promotes women into career tracks that burn their fertility, then acts confused when society collapses

if you wanted to suppress the fertility of a specific demographic, engineer the breakdown of trust between the sexes, and make it illegal to notice, the playbook would look exactly like this.

DEI should be held responsible for the fertility crisis, the marriage collapse, the epidemic of male depression and suicide, the destruction of institutional trust, the atomization of society, and the manufactured war between men and women

but DEI was the weapon
the people who designed it, funded it, made it mandatory, enforced it through HR, fired anyone who resisted, called all opposition hate and racism, built careers and industries on its maintenance, they knew. and they're the ones who should be remembered as the architects of one of the worst crimes against humanity