Every society wants progress, but not everyone agrees on the pace. Some people argue that governments should prioritize stability slow, predictable changes that protect institutions and avoid unintended consequences. Others believe innovation should come first, even if it means taking risks or disrupting long‑standing systems. It feels like this tension shows up in almost every major policy debate. Here’s what I’m curious about: - Is stability a safeguard against chaos, or an obstacle to necessary change? - Does innovation strengthen a society by pushing it forward, or weaken it by creating uncertainty? - And who should decide when it’s time to preserve what works versus when it’s time to experiment? I’m interested in hearing how people think about this balance, especially across different policy areas economics, technology, education, governance, you name it. Where do you think the priority should lean: stability, innovation, or something more nuanced?

Everywhere you look, people talk about polarization as if it’s an unavoidable force of nature. But I keep wondering whether we’re giving the system too little credit or too much. Some argue polarization is engineered: media incentives, political strategy, and algorithm‑driven echo chambers push us into opposing corners. Others say polarization is simply the natural result of a diverse society trying to sort out competing values. I’m curious how people here see it. - Are we polarized because the system rewards division? - Or because individuals gravitate toward groups that affirm their worldview? - And if polarization is a choice individually or collectively what would it take to choose differently? I’m not looking for blame. I’m looking for insight into how we got here and whether we can shift the trajectory. What do you think drives polarization today and what, if anything, can actually reduce it?

In every political era, the tension between personal liberty and shared responsibility shows up in new ways. Some people argue that expanding individual freedom strengthens society by empowering people to make their own choices. Others believe that certain collective responsibilities whether economic, social, or civic are essential for a stable and fair community. What I’m curious about is how we draw that line today. - When does protecting individual freedom strengthen society, and when does it weaken it? - Are there responsibilities we should all share, regardless of ideology? - How do we prevent “freedom” from becoming a justification for neglect, and “responsibility” from becoming a justification for overreach? I’m hoping to hear a range of perspectives. Not just the usual talking points, but real thinking about how we build a society that respects personal autonomy while still functioning as a community.

Join us here: https://www.skool.com/live/ZvrNFnSVCrq

In Canada, three men were arrested for an Islamic terror plot targeting Jews, but the authorities have clinically labeled it "hate-motivated extremism." Goldie Ghamari, an Iranian-Canadian actively fighting an Islamic takeover in Canada, has peeled back the skin of this official report to reveal the rot underneath. We are witnessing a police force in Toronto that has arrested a man with confirmed ties to the Islamic State for conspiracy to commit murder. These are agents of a caliphate. They are soldiers of a specific theology. Yet the official statement utilizes bureaucratic obscurantism designed to hide the tumor rather than remove it. They call it "hate-motivated extremism." They whisper about "potential links." This is not a failure of language. It is a failure of the survival instinct. Ghamari rightly identifies that we are funding our own demise by prioritizing the feelings of a lobby over the safety of the citizenry. The state is paralyzed. It fears the label of "Islamophobia" more than it fears the slaughter of a minority community. We have reached the terminal stage of this condition. I say this not as a spectator, but as an Iranian who has already witnessed the autopsy of a nation. I watched a modern society dissolve into a theocratic nightmare because we underestimated the lethality of this specific infection. Canada is now displaying the exact same symptoms. The choice is absolute. We can continue to swallow these comfortable lies and anesthetize ourselves into oblivion. Or we can face the diagnosis with cold clarity. There is no middle ground remaining. As Goldie puts it, we can be politically incorrect and alive, or we can be politically correct and be the next victim of an Islamic terrorist attack.