Wes

Ride the Tiger

[lubricant @darren_lubedude]

This man will be vilified by the Elbows up team as a traitor.

Absolutely spot on analysis.

[The Food Professor @FoodProfessor]

Mark Warner, one of Canada’s best trade lawyers—and a friend—dismantles, one by one, every argument used to defend Canada’s current negotiating strategy with the United States.

A masterclass of an interview.

Watch the whole thing. Oh, and the midterms won’t make a difference...

[Will Tanner @Will_Tanner_1]

To the degree America influences foreign countries through trade policy and the like, it should be to stop this sort of anti-civilizational tyranny

Want free trade with America? Then have free speech, let your people defend themselves from criminals, no confiscatory taxation, etc. Otherwise, we’ll treat you as the civilizational enemy you are

Of course, we’d need such laws first, so there’s that

But there is no reason that America should be defending countries, as is increasingly the case in Europe, who put the "rights" of invaders ahead of the rights of their subjects, or that act in anti-civilizational ways with confiscatory taxation and indolence-inducing welfare programs, and so on

We ought throw off our Dewayne Geld yoke, and then use our economic might (hugely strengthened by doing that) to demand those who wish to be our partners to do the same

[Lyman Stone 石來民 🦬🦬🦬 @lymanstoneky]

so, uh, the Lindsey Clancy juror interviews are, uh, pretty damning for the credibility of jury trials

[Dean Karayanis @HistoryDean]

Wow. This is huge. @MarkCarney announcing that he’s going to divest the 92% of his portfolio that’s in American companies and move them to Canadian ones. He’s also immediately bringing back his family and will cancel his owns for a m Miami trip to stand in solidarity with freezing Canadians unable to afford heating.

Elbows…

…

Oh. He’s not doing any of those things? He’s just gonna tell Canadians to suffer while he’s entirely insulated from the consequences of walking away from talks while bragging his some kind of master diplomat?

Weird.

[James E. Thorne @DrJStrategy]

Carney’s Whistling Past the Graveyard

The Carney government has chosen a dangerous premise for Canadian economic policy: that public anger at Donald Trump and the United States can be converted into a durable strategy of trade diversification.
It cannot.

Anti American sentiment may be politically useful. It may help frame the dispute as a “trade war” and make defiance sound like leadership. But Canada’s economic interests do not change because the rhetoric does. Canada needs access to, and integration with, the United States, full stop.

Carney’s earlier pivot at the Economic Club of New York was the right instinct. It recognized that Canada’s prosperity depends on maintaining a serious, practical relationship with American capital, industry, and policymakers. That approach was grounded in the reality of continental integration. His current approach, seemingly drawn from the Democrats’ political playbook, is the opposite. It turns a commercial dispute into a partisan emotional campaign.

That is dangerous and misguided. Designing Canadian policy around the hope that it can shape, or alter, an American election is not strategy. It is an extraordinary gamble with the country’s economic future. Canadian governments cannot afford to bet jobs, investment, trade access, and financial stability on the assumption that the U.S. electorate will deliver a preferred political outcome.

The United States is not merely Canada’s largest export market. It is the market around which Canada’s industrial economy was built. Southern Ontario is tied to the American Midwest and Northeast through supply chains, cross border investment, financial flows, energy links, and manufacturing networks that developed over generations. Canadian firms do not simply sell finished goods into the United States. They make products with American firms, finance them through North American markets, and move components back and forth across the border at speed.

That is why Carney’s central gamble is so reckless. He appears to believe that America’s turn toward tariffs, industrial policy, strategic protection, and economic nationalism will fade after the midterms. But this is not a temporary Trump impulse. It is a bipartisan American response to the belief that the old free trade model weakened domestic manufacturing, supply chain security, and national power.

Canada should take that shift seriously, not wish it away.

Carney is repeating the failed instinct of Pierre Elliott Trudeau after Ronald Reagan’s election. Trudeau responded to a more assertive United States by seeking political distance and greater room for manoeuvre outside the continental relationship. That strategy was a massive failure. It did not free Canada from American economic gravity. It left Canada more exposed to inflation, weak investment, fiscal deterioration, and a damaged business climate, before the Mulroney government ultimately pursued the Canada U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

Distance is not independence. For a smaller economy deeply integrated with a larger neighbour, access is not optional. It is a strategic asset to be protected.

This is why diversification must be understood properly. Canada should pursue new markets where it has real advantages. But selling more abroad cannot substitute for preserving access to the American market. A trade agreement with Europe does not replace an integrated North American production base. A warmer relationship with Beijing does not make Canada less exposed.

In fact, the China strategy magnifies the contradiction. Canada supports Ukraine while China sustains Russia’s war economy. Canada looks to Europe as an alternative market while Chinese industrial overcapacity undermines European manufacturing. Yet Carney appears prepared to pursue deeper economic integration with China. That is not a coherent strategy. It is a refusal to acknowledge that economics, security, and industrial policy are now inseparable.

The financial exposure should make Ottawa especially cautious. Canadian banks and corporations rely on U.S. dollar clearing, correspondent banking, cross border payments, trade finance, and American capital markets. A serious disruption to those channels would be far more damaging than a tariff. It would hit trade, credit, investment, and confidence at once.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has made clear that the United States is willing to use financial power to advance national interests. Dismissing such warnings is not courage. It is complacency.

Canadians should remember Argentina, once among the world’s richest countries, which allowed political narratives to outrun economic reality and paid for it with decades of decline. Canada is not Argentina. But no country is immune from self inflicted damage when its leaders mistake rhetoric for capacity.
Carney should stop the performative politics and get a deal with the United States. Diversification should strengthen Canada’s bargaining position, not become a partisan fantasy that substitutes for the continental relationship on which Canadian prosperity still depends.
For now, Ottawa is whistling past the graveyard.

Exclusive—Secretary Scott Bessent on Canada: PM Carney ‘Needs to Stop Campaigning, Start Governing‘; ‘They Wanted the Benefits of Being a State Without Being a State‘ https://t.co/hsiFr3rn3K via @BreitbartNews

[Dan Albas @DanAlbas]

Painful for who? This is coming from a PM who just returned from a Tuscany summer vacation and shared his message over American owned YouTube instead of from our Canadian owned House of Commons.

[Saggezza Eterna @FinalTelegraph]

Aesop Diagnosed the Modern Left 2,600 Years Ago

Liberals are not merely mistaken; they are a spiritual rot, a parasitic infection of the soul that must be surgically excised from your life before their moral bankruptcy and demonic, godless stupidity infects your own sanity. To let these toxic scum bags hold power is to invite the devil himself to govern, for they are empty vessels of evil who have traded truth for a lie and humanity for a hollow, demonic agenda that seeks only to destroy everything sacred.

Let's begin:

Aesop was an ancient Greek fabulist who lived during the sixth century BC, roughly between 620 and 564 BC. Classical historians such as Herodotus recorded that Aesop was born into slavery, likely in Thrace or Phrygia, and ultimately won his freedom through his formidable wit, diplomatic skill, and storytelling. Instead of engaging in academic abstraction, he weaponized animal allegories to expose raw power dynamics, diagnose human hypocrisy, and instruct rulers on the brutal realities of human nature. His collected tales, known collectively as Aesop’s Fables, remain the cornerstone of Western moral instruction.

Let's look into The Fox and the Grapes:

A famished fox crept through an orchard until he stopped beneath a high arbor. Dangling just overhead hung a lush cluster of ripe, deep-purple grapes, heavy with juice and glistening in the morning sun.

The fox backed up, took a running leap, and snapped his jaws, only to fall short by inches. He reset his stance, coiled his muscles, and lunged a second time with everything he had, only to hit empty air. Again and again he leaped, exhausting his strength against the unyielding height of the vine. Finally, panting, humiliated, and incapable of clearing the distance, the fox rolled his eyes, curled his lip in disgust, and muttered, "They are green, bitter, and entirely sour; only a fool would waste his time eating them." He turned his back and strutted away, feigning supreme indifference toward the very prize he was too weak to reach.

The fable defines the psychological defense mechanism known as "sour grapes." When an inferior actor lacks the competence, discipline, or strength to attain something genuinely magnificent, they resolve their humiliation by declaring the prize itself worthless. It is the refuge of the defeated ego: feigning moral or intellectual superiority over the very excellence you are physically incapable of achieving.

Modern liberalism is this ancient fable codified into an entire political ideology. Liberal scum is incapable of generating organic excellence, economic resilience, or enduring cultural beauty. The contemporary left functions as a collective of bitter foxes raging against vines they can never reach.

Look at their assault on academic merit. When progressive education policies failed to produce equal academic performance, they did not elevate standards. They dismantled accelerated programs, discarded standardized testing across elite universities, and declared objective grading rubrics oppressive. Because they cannot jump high enough to grasp the fruit of rigorous competence, they declare the standard itself toxic. They themselves are the toxic pond scum. The stain on society.

Observe their posture toward classical art, architecture, and family structures. The Western tradition produced monuments of sublime stone, timeless literature, and stable generational households built on self-sacrifice and duty. Leftist ideologues, possessing neither the discipline nor the spiritual depth to replicate these achievements, seek to vandalize them instead. They celebrate sterile, brutalist concrete, promote aesthetic degeneracy in publicly funded galleries, and mock traditional virtue. They sneer at the family unit and civilizational greatness precisely because those structures demand an inward strength that modern leftism permanently lacks.

The liberal worldview remains trapped in this primitive psychology of resentment. They gaze upon economic prosperity, cultural order, and unapologetic greatness, realize their total inability to produce or maintain any of it, and scoff that it was sour all along. It is institutionalized envy masquerading as enlightenment. They are not fit to rule.

[vittorio @IterIntellectus]

if you'd please consult the chart:

[John Carter @martianwyrdlord]

The pension systems are intergenerational contracts. Such a compact is necessarily established by one generation and then imposed on the next, who are given no choice in the matter. For such an arrangement to be ethically valid, it must be demonstrable that the interests of subsequent generations were given equal if not greater weight to the interests of the formative generation.

This is not the case with our pension systems, whether in the US or elsewhere in the Western world. Benefits are accrued entirely by the present generation of senior citizens, and are paid for largely with debt, which is imposed on future generations, who will carry the majority of the cost yet will receive none of the benefits.

A similar analysis applies to private, investment based pension systems, which are largely responsible for the comprehensive enshittification of society (since a certain level of return must be obtained in order for the pensions to pay out), and therefore represent in practice a steady reduction in quality of life for the young in order to maintain the quality of life of the old. The pension systems are also driven by the debt-based monetary system, which has the same ethical issue as described of.

Given its fundamentally vampiric nature, the social contract of the pension system is ethically indefensible, and the young have absolutely no obligation to honor it.

[John Carter @martianwyrdlord]

This misses the mark in a subtle but interesting way. The author invokes the concept of oikophobia against the Canadian online right for joining in (actually initiating) American mockery of Canada, arguing that Canadian rightists are themselves oikophobic for not instead supporting the Carnites.

This is incoherent. The Liberal regime is itself oikophobic, loudly so. Oikophobia is explicit Canadian government policy, as the author himself tacitly acknowledges by noting that we pointed out the hypocrisy of Canadian politicians decrying Trump's lame Lake America stunt after a decade-long orgy of renaming every school, square, and street in the country in the name of a Woke ideology imported straight from America. That's to say nothing of replacement migration, and racial preference systems that make white Canadians second class citizens. You can't be oikophobic against the oikophobes.

There are certainly slopulist 51st staters out there, but their influence in the Canadian right is actually marginal, largely confined to a rump of lolcow Alberta separatists. The energy is all in Canadian Loyalism, and that is a different animal entirely.

The reason we're happy to pile on to the Canadian political elite when the Americans mock them isn't because we want to be America. It's because we're disgusted by the state of the country.

Trump can excoriate the Canadian military for being fat and woke because it is. That isn't Trump's fault. That's because of decades of sabotage and social engineering by the Liberal Party.

Trump can joke about annexation because the Canadian military is weak. Again, that isn't Trump's fault. That's the fault of the Laurentian elite, the very people now insisting that they can turn things around.

If Canada had a serious government, we'd be taken seriously. We don't, and haven't since Pearson at least. As a direct result of the deeply unserious clowns running the country into the ground, Canada is poor, defenseless, sclerotic, and despondent. Every time Trump makes fun of us, the very fact that his insults land is a condemnation of the elites that brought our beautiful country to this shameful condition.

Saving Canada requires circulating the elite.

And that's why we pile on.

[Brian Lilley @brianlilley]

When I raised this as a political issue back in July, I was reliably informed by the smart set that having a Democrat operative who supported Clinton, Biden and Harris advise Carney on American matters was a non-issue.
I disagreed then, I disagree now.
https://t.co/9QhKmSjOiM

[lubricant @darren_lubedude]

The Canadian Chicken Tax Nobody Calls a Tax

Recently I walked through a Costco in Michigan and saw something that should make Canadians ask a very simple question.

Two whole chickens were selling for US$10.69.

At today's rough exchange rate, that's about C$14.50.

Drive those chickens a couple of hours north across the Canadian border and Canadians routinely encounter substantially higher prices for essentially the same basic protein.

Chicken isn't a luxury.

It's one of the most basic foods a family buys.

So why does crossing an international border suddenly change its economics so dramatically?

The answer begins with a Canadian agricultural policy created more than 50 years ago for reasons that actually made sense at the time.

But somewhere along the way, a system designed to protect farmers from catastrophic market swings became a system designed to protect the market itself from competition.

And Canadians are paying for it.

Supply Management Solved a Real Problem

Canada didn't create chicken supply management because politicians woke up one morning wanting expensive chicken.

Agriculture had a genuine problem in the 1960s and early 1970s.

Farmers would increase production. Too much chicken would hit the market. Prices would collapse. Farmers would lose money or fail. Production would subsequently fall, shortages could develop, prices would recover and farmers would expand again.

Boom.

Bust.

Repeat.

Canada's answer was supply management.

Instead of allowing unlimited production, Canada would estimate how much chicken Canadians were going to consume and regulate production accordingly.

Farmers received quota.

Prices became more predictable.

Production became more predictable.

Farm failures caused by wild commodity cycles became less common.

There is nothing inherently foolish about that objective.

The problem is what Canada had to build around it to make it work.

We Didn't Just Stabilize Chicken. We Protected It From Competition.

Supply management rests on three pillars.

Canada controls how much chicken farmers can produce.

It uses administered pricing mechanisms intended to provide producers with predictable returns.

And, most importantly, Canada controls how much competing foreign chicken can enter the country at ordinary tariff rates.

That third pillar is essential.

Because imagine what would happen otherwise.

Suppose Canadian chicken costs $10 and equivalent American chicken costs $7.

A Canadian wholesaler would simply buy American chicken.

Canadian producers and processors would then have to respond.

They could become more efficient.

They could lower their margins.

They could increase productivity.

Or they could lose business.

That's how a market normally corrects a price difference.

Canada doesn't permit that correction to happen freely.

We establish tariff-rate quotas determining how much foreign chicken can enter at lower tariff rates. Beyond those quantities, enormous over-quota tariffs apply.

That's not my characterization of the system.

The OECD describes Canadian supply management as a combination of production quotas, pricing mechanisms and import controls, and concludes that it generally lifts domestic prices above international levels. The OECD goes further, saying this protection distorts production and trade, inflates domestic prices, hinders market responsiveness and discourages innovation.

That's a remarkably blunt assessment of Canadian agricultural policy from an international economic organization.

Here's the Part Canadians Should Understand

We aren't protecting ourselves from American chicken because Canada is incapable of importing it.

We're already importing enormous quantities of it.

In 2025, the United States supplied 60.8 million kilograms of chicken to Canada under Canada's tariff-rate quotas.

Canada's CUSMA chicken quota alone permitted 57 million kilograms in 2025, of which 56.3 million kilograms were actually imported.

In other words, that U.S. quota was almost completely used.

And something particularly interesting happened in 2025.

Canada authorized another 273,602 kilograms of supplemental chicken imports specifically because of market shortages.

It was the first time shortage permits had been required since 2017.

Think about the contradiction.

We created supply management partly to ensure predictable supply.

We restrict Canadian farmers from producing beyond allocated quantities.

We restrict foreign chicken from freely entering the market.

And when our controlled system doesn't produce enough chicken, we issue special permission to import more.

From where?

Frequently from the very competitive international market we've been protecting ourselves against.

America Just Gave Us an Interesting Experiment

Look at what happened with eggs in the United States.

Avian influenza devastated laying flocks.

Supply collapsed.

Prices exploded.

Consumers were furious.

But something else happened.

The high prices sent an enormous economic signal through the market:

WE NEED MORE EGGS.

Producers had every incentive imaginable to rebuild flocks and increase production.

Supply responded.

The market began correcting.

It wasn't painless.

Markets aren't painless.

But the shock itself contained the mechanism that encouraged its correction.

Interestingly, the OECD specifically acknowledges this recent phenomenon. It found that Canada's calculated protection for poultry and eggs temporarily declined because avian influenza drove American border prices so high relative to Canadian prices.

That's exactly what markets do.

Prices move.

Consumers substitute.

Producers respond.

Capital moves toward scarcity.

Production increases.

Prices eventually normalize.

Canada decided decades ago that we could engineer that volatility out of chicken.

And we largely succeeded.

But we also engineered out some of the competitive forces that push prices downward.

There Is No Free Shock Absorber

This is the part of supply management Canadians rarely hear explained.

We purchased stability.

The question is:

Who paid for it?

Not primarily the federal treasury.

The cost is largely buried in the price of the product.

The OECD recognized this problem years ago, noting that higher prices caused by supply management can have a regressive effect because lower-income households spend a greater percentage of their income on food.

That's what makes this different from many agricultural subsidies.

If Parliament decided Canadian chicken farmers deserved $1 billion annually for food security, Canadians could debate it.

The expenditure would appear in a government budget.

Parliament could vote on it.

Taxpayers could see it.

And importantly, our progressive tax system would mean affluent Canadians carried more of the burden.

Supply management hides the transfer inside the grocery bill.

The millionaire pays the same protected price for chicken as the single mother trying to feed three children.

That's an extraordinarily inefficient way to conduct social policy.

And Who Benefits From the Protection?

This is where Canadians should start asking much harder questions.

We are always told supply management protects the family farmer.

Fine.

But the farmer isn't the only participant operating behind Canada's protective wall.

Chicken must move from the farmer through processors, further processors, distributors and retailers.

Large processors operate inside the same Canadian market in which domestic production is restricted and additional foreign competition is controlled.

Companies such as Maple Leaf Foods, Sofina Foods, Olymel and Exceldor are therefore operating within an industry whose raw-material supply and international competitive environment are profoundly influenced by government policy.

That doesn't automatically mean those companies are doing anything wrong.

They're playing by the rules Canada created.

But Canadians should be asking:

How much of the economic benefit of those rules actually reaches the family farmer—and how much remains elsewhere in the protected supply chain?

Because if we're paying substantially more for chicken in Canada, we deserve to know where the difference goes.

This Is Where Protection Becomes Crony Capitalism

I don't object to helping farmers survive genuine catastrophes.

I object to pretending the only choices are today's supply-management system or agricultural chaos.

They aren't.

Canada could create catastrophic-loss insurance.

We could establish stabilization funds.

We could maintain strategic agricultural reserves.

We could insure producers against disease outbreaks.

We could provide temporary countercyclical support when market prices collapse below sustainable levels.

We could even directly compensate farmers during extraordinary events.

Those mechanisms would act as shock absorbers without permanently disabling the competitive price mechanism.

Instead, Canada chose something far more intrusive.

We control production.

We control access to production through quota.

We influence producer pricing.

We ration foreign competition through tariff-rate quotas.

And then we distribute valuable import rights among processors, distributors, food-service companies and other qualifying participants.

The federal government actually publishes lists of the companies receiving these chicken import allocations.

At some point we have to stop calling that simply “protecting the family farm.”

It is a government-designed marketplace.

And when government designs a marketplace in a way that protects established economic interests from ordinary competition, crony capitalism becomes a legitimate criticism of the structure—even if every company participating in it is behaving completely legally.

The Arbitrary Cost of Being Canadian

This is ultimately what bothers me most.

I can drive from Ontario into Michigan.

The climate hasn't dramatically changed.

The chicken hasn't changed.

The nutritional value hasn't changed.

The border is the major thing that changed.

And yet I can encounter chicken selling for dramatically less.

That price difference should force Canadians to ask whether the stability we purchased 50 years ago is still worth its cost.

Because protecting farmers from catastrophe is one thing.

Protecting an industry from competition indefinitely is something entirely different.

The original architects of supply management were trying to prevent farm failures and destructive overproduction.

They weren't designing agricultural policy for Canada in 2026.

Today we have sophisticated agricultural insurance.

Futures markets.

Modern forecasting.

Real-time consumption data.

Global logistics.

Disease surveillance.

Cold-chain infrastructure.

Modern banking.

Government stabilization programs.

And one of the world's most integrated agricultural relationships sitting immediately across the American border.

Surely we can design a better shock absorber than permanently restricting competition.

Don't Abolish the Safety Net. Change Who Pays for It.

I don't advocate waking up tomorrow morning and simply eliminating chicken quota.

Farmers bought farms and borrowed money based upon rules their government established. Quota has become an enormously valuable asset. Destroying that value overnight would punish people who invested according to the law.

Transition would have to be gradual.

But the objective should be straightforward:

Protect farmers from catastrophe without protecting the industry from competition.

Let production respond to prices.

Gradually increase import access.

Phase down prohibitive tariffs.

Replace permanent price protection with transparent catastrophic-risk insurance.

If taxpayers believe domestic food security is worth subsidizing, put that subsidy in the federal budget where Canadians can see it.

And compensate existing farmers fairly during the transition.

Then let Canadian agriculture compete.

Because there is a fundamental difference between protecting a farmer from disaster and protecting an industry's margins from competition.

Canada began with the first.

Over fifty years, we built the second.

And every Canadian standing at the grocery checkout is helping pay for it.

@FoodProfessor I welcome an educated rebuttal BTW

[Wes @sailswithwhales]

Are you retarded and can’t read the whole conversation? One reply further and you would have noticed I said our media is responsible for the explanation/interpretation if they were acting in good faith, not just taking his words literally. Media on both sides of the border refuses to do so, to a detriment to both citizenry.

[Wes @sailswithwhales]

@Christi4090636 @darren_lubedude If you kept reading the conversation you would have stumbled on a reply that said our media is responsible for the interpretation/explanation in good faith, not Trump, which neither nations media apparatus is doing.

[lubricant @darren_lubedude]

Due to the overwhelming response to my recent post, I am launching a multi-part deep dive into the hidden architecture of Canada’s economy.
If you have ever wondered why your phone bill is so high, why grocery prices feel insulated from global realities, or how a handful of corporate giants dominate our most essential sectors, this series is for you.
Over the coming days, we are breaking down the protected, concentrated, and heavily regulated industries that form the backbone of Canadian commerce. We’ll examine how these systems were built, who they were designed to safeguard, and what they mean for consumers, workers, and taxpayers today.
Here is what we’ll be covering:
Part 1: The Kitchen Table — Dairy, Chicken & Pork
We’ll unpack the mechanics of Canada’s supply management system. How do production quotas, import tariffs, and marketing boards shield domestic farmers from global volatility, and what is the trade-off at the checkout line?
Part 2: Heavy Metal — Steel & Aluminum
A look at how global trade politics, carbon border adjustments, and domestic industrial strategy intersect to safeguard the critical materials that build our infrastructure and manufacturing base.
Part 3: The Boardroom Cartels — Banking & Telecom
Why does Canada rely on the "Big Banking" and "Big Telecom" models? We’ll analyze how strict foreign ownership limits and high regulatory barriers trade market competition for financial stability and domestic control.
Part 4: Sovereign Control — Defense & Aviation
Lastly, we’ll look at the sky and the frontline. From airline cabotage restrictions to military procurement strategies, we’ll evaluate how national security and economic sovereignty dictate who gets to fly and who gets to supply our armed forces.
Whether you view these frameworks as vital shields for national self-reliance or costly barriers to consumer choice, understanding how they were set up is essential to understanding Canada’s economic future.

[Cosmopolitan Reactionary @cosmorxn]

I think it’s important to point out that the problem with Third World immigration to Europe isn’t “Afghans”, “Somalis” or “Pakistanis” per se.

The actual problem is that Europe’s institutions and incentives are designed to attract the worst people from those countries.

Europe’s libertinism attracts porn-brained third-worlders who, put simply, want to fuck white women, take drugs and drink alcohol without social judgment. European welfare states attracts the indolent, the greedy and the shameless. And Europe’s Left nurtures a feeling of resentment in these newcomers, libelling indigenous Europeans by attributing migrants’ failures to “racism” and “Islamophobia”. The left’s rhetoric encourages people with low civilisational self-esteem to believe that the pathologies of their own societies are the fault of Westerners.

I live in Qatar, a country populated by Muslims from across the Islamic world, and people here live together in remarkable peace and harmony precisely because everyone understands what is at stake. Commit a crime and you will be deported. There is no welfare state to attract lazy opportunists, so the migrant population is overwhelmingly composed of people who have a reason to be here. Nobody comes to Qatar from Afghanistan to rape teenage girls and deal MDMA. If you don’t create wealth or perform some function that benefits Qataris, you simply aren’t invited.

Nobody can naturalise as a Qatari. I know third-generation Syrians and Indians who have never even visited Syria or India, yet they understand perfectly well that if they lose their employment and cannot find another job, they will eventually have to leave.

Europe’s problems are therefore not particularly difficult to solve. The astonishing thing is that so few people seem willing to acknowledge just how straightforward the solutions are.

[Kenny @kennydob]

Canada is collapsing. Quebec and Alberta want out. Ontario is now a have not province with a 7% unemployment rate. Federal debt service payments are more than healthcare spending. Canada’s youth cant get a job. Food is unaffordable. We need change NOW.

[Theo Fleury @TheoFleury14]

Nope not me. I see a bunch of crazed communists running our country into the ground on purpose.

[Wes @sailswithwhales]

@MadeInCanada_eh This isn’t the dunk you think it is, it’s more of a self own on the question of whether or not you understand basic economics, retard