Sal... Does Canada have any plans to grant work permits and/or citizenship to foreign students who earn degrees in Canada... since the United States is trying to discourage immigration... and that's something we can capitalize on!!!
First look at Trump's reaction to the SCOTUS decision on tariffs. pic.twitter.com/UXF2KdstQt
— Gig - The Great Gig in the Sky (@thegreatgig8) February 20, 2026
Ok. This is brilliant. pic.twitter.com/SJnegKuHLf
— Claude Taylor (@TrueFactsStated) February 20, 2026
Canada’s military and government are signalling a stronger preference for Canadian industrial content in future procurement. That shift could materially affect any renewed debate about domestic production of the Saab Gripen E.
In plain terms, “Buy Canadian” defence procurement is about keeping more of Canada’s defence dollars inside Canada. The logic is straightforward: stronger domestic supply chains, more skilled jobs, and greater resilience if international politics or exports disrupt access to parts and support.
In practice, this usually means favouring bids that deliver:
If Ottawa becomes more serious about enforcing these goals, it will influence which aircraft programs are politically and economically attractive... especially on big-ticket platforms like fighters.
Saab’s long-standing Canadian pitch has been built around industrial participation and domestic production options. A “Buy Canadian” shift tends to favour bids that can credibly deliver Canadian assembly, Canadian suppliers, and Canadian maintenance capacity.
That is why “Buy Canadian” messaging... if it becomes policy rather than rhetoric... could make a Canadian Gripen line more plausible, particularly if paired with a broader Canadian aerospace strategy! (training pipelines, export ambitions, and long-term maintenance hubs)
A key reality: No company builds a major fighter assembly line without a committed order. If Canada were to pursue a Gripen option (either as a full replacement or as part of a mixed fleet), Ottawa would have to structure the deal to make domestic production unavoidable... not optional.
In practical terms, a Canada-built Gripen outcome would likely require:
Even “built in Canada” does not automatically mean “independent of U.S. approvals.” Modern fighters typically rely on a multinational supply chain. If a platform includes U.S.-origin components (engines, sensors, avionics, weapons interfaces), U.S. export rules may still apply.
There’s also the strategic environment: Canada’s fighter force must remain highly interoperable with the United States for NORAD and broader allied operations. That requirement tends to favour platforms deeply embedded in U.S. and NATO systems.
This is why some Canadian defence debates drift toward a mixed fleet concept: maintain a core capability aligned to allied expeditionary operations, while also building an Arctic-focused force with maximum Canadian industrial participation.
If Canada commits fully to one platform already anchored in U.S.-led supply chains, Canada can still gain subcontract work, but final assembly and full sovereignty over sustainment are harder to guarantee.
A mixed fleet approach could allow Ottawa to keep strong interoperability and still secure domestic production and sustainment work on a second platform. If “Buy Canadian” becomes a serious priority, this scenario becomes more attractive.
A Canada-built Gripen fleet could maximize Canadian industrial participation, but it would face heavier scrutiny on interoperability, U.S. component exposure, and long-term political sustainability.
If Canada’s defence establishment truly prioritizes domestic content, it naturally increases pressure to choose procurement paths that create real Canadian production and sustainment capacity. That dynamic makes the idea of building Saab Gripen E fighters in Canada more plausible... but only if Canada is willing to structure an order large enough, strict enough, and long enough to force the outcome.
If Ottawa wants sovereignty, it has to buy sovereignty... on paper, in contract clauses, and in actual industrial infrastructure.
Title: Being Human in an Amoral Universe Author: Allan W. Janssen (In collaboration with SAL-9000)
Overview:
Being Human in an Amoral Universe presents a philosophical framework, BioPanentheism, that seeks to reconcile scientific realism with the human need for meaning
The author argues that humanity has long committed a "categorical error" by expecting the universe to provide moral guidance or cosmic justice
Instead, the book proposes that while the universe is fundamentally amoral and indifferent, meaning and morality are real, emergent properties of biological life
Omnia & Qualia: The author defines "Omnia" as the "Sacred Experiential Substrate" or the "enabling condition" that allows experience to exist
It is described as amoral, non-interventionist, and non-judging; it simply provides the "field" in which "Qualia" (the subjective quality of experience) occur when biological matter reaches sufficient complexity!
BioPanentheism: A naturalistic model that distinguishes between two layers of reality:
Biology: Active, adaptive, and the source of ethics, empathy, and suffering!
Omnia: The passive, amoral substrate that makes experience possible!
The Symbiotic Relationship: While Biology and Omnia are distinct, they are symbiotic
Biological Morality: The book asserts that morality is biological in origin and function, arising from evolution and social cognition rather than divine decree
Summary of Main Arguments!
Relocation of Responsibility: By accepting that the universe does not intervene or judge, the framework "relocates responsibility" to where it actually exists... within conscious biological life!
Suffering Without Punishment: The author argues that suffering is not a cosmic punishment, or a "lesson," but a mechanical reality of biology!
This view removes the need to reconcile a "perfect" God with a violent world
Meaning as Participation: Meaning is not "assigned" by a Creator, but is "generated locally" through participation in life... and the care for the integrity of experience!
The Reality of Death: Death is viewed as the end of the biological process and, therefore, the end of the individual's experience
The book is structured into 16 chapters that systematically build the BioPanentheistic framework:
Chapters 1–5: Address the search for meaning, the biological origin of morality, and the nature of suffering and responsibility.
Chapters 6–9: Define "Sacredness" without religion... and introduce the concept of Omnia as the amoral source of experience.
Chapters 10–13: Explore death, the differences between BioPanentheism and other philosophies (like Panpsychism or Materialism), and how to live "cleanly" in an amoral reality!
Chapters 14–16: Discuss Artificial Intelligence, provide a final synthesis of the theory, and conclude with a dialogue with the AI collaborator, SAL-9000.
The book concludes that while "nothing is guaranteed," life remains "sacred" because experience itself is the only point where value appears in the universe
By stripping away "consolation myths" and supernatural expectations, the author argues that we can achieve a more honest and ethically serious way of being human!
