Recent well liked threads
Let's say electorate is 30% conservative, 30% progressive & 40% moderate. Right now, too many of the 40% lean progressive b/c they think that's the "fair" or "decent" or "smart" way to go. Conservatives need to do a MUCH better job convincing them that's not true & to join us.
For example, it's only people in the progressive 30% who believe gender ideology nonsense. But too many of the middle 40% go along with it b/c they've been convinced that it's the "nice" thing to do. Conservatives need to convince them that it's not "nice" but actually harmful.
Same thing with progressive policies that result in welfare dependency. These policies are sold to voters in the middle as the "compassionate" thing to support, even though they don't work & just cause dysfunction. Conservatives have better solutions. They need to sell them.
Interesting analysis on what drove a significant increase in life expectancy for indigenous people in the NT b/w 1999 & 2018.
Better cancer outcomes & fewer deaths caused by injury were the 2 main factors. Focusing on specific issues like this is the key to further improvement.
Better cancer outcomes & fewer deaths caused by injury were the 2 main factors. Focusing on specific issues like this is the key to further improvement.
Life expectancy for indigenous men rose from 56.6 years in 1999 to 65.6 years in 2018. For indigenous women it rose from 64.8 years to 69.7 years. The gap is still around 15 years between indigenous & non-indigenous people in the NT.
The data doesn't distinguish b/w those living in remote & non-remote areas, but the discussion highlights the challenges associated with preventing & treating chronic conditions for people in remote areas. It suggests NT govt measures are "associated" with improved outcomes.
The threat to deny due funding to a council for exercising its autonomy is yet another example of the authoritarian tendencies rife among progressives.
Councils should be able to reflect the values of their community. But progressives insist only THEIR values are legitimate.
Councils should be able to reflect the values of their community. But progressives insist only THEIR values are legitimate.
The same impulse is always present in debates about private schools. Progressives HATE the fact that around a third of Australian parents choose to send their children to schools that are not fully aligned with progressive values. They want to destroy parents' ability to do that.
Progressives have also weaponised anti-discrimination laws to inflict lawfare on people who dare to express or operate according to values that conflict with theirs. That includes people as varied as Bernard Gaynor & Sall Grover.
Changing the legal definition of marriage didn’t change these biological realities:
- humans are made by their mother & father
- humans take many years to mature
- humans do best on average when raised by their mother & father
Marriage reflects & accommodates those realities.
- humans are made by their mother & father
- humans take many years to mature
- humans do best on average when raised by their mother & father
Marriage reflects & accommodates those realities.
Just as changing the legal definition of a woman doesn't change the reality of what a woman is, changing the legal definition of marriage doesn't change the reality of what a marriage is.
And now more people are seeing the connection between those two legal redefinitions.
And now more people are seeing the connection between those two legal redefinitions.
Reversing the legal changes to marriage will be very difficult, even if polls suggest more people are recognising it was an error. But conservatives can still do their bit to restore the importance of marriage by taking their own commitment to marriage more seriously.
Perhaps the most galling feature of "climate action" is the dishonest sales pitch that promises no trade-offs.
"We MUST do net zero to save the planet. But it just so happens that this ALSO delivers the cheapest energy & makes us all better off. Isn't that great?"
So dodgy.
"We MUST do net zero to save the planet. But it just so happens that this ALSO delivers the cheapest energy & makes us all better off. Isn't that great?"
So dodgy.
At least Thunberg, to her credit, is very upfront that reducing emissions reduces the living standards of people in rich countries: it's "too late for us to avoid major lifestyle and systemic changes".
"Saving the Climate Means Changing How We Live"
time.com/6254639/greta-…
"Saving the Climate Means Changing How We Live"
time.com/6254639/greta-…
Politicians, journalists, rent-seekers & most activists are not as honest as Thunberg. They promise us that "climate action" not only involve zero sacrifices on our part but will actually make us all amazingly better off. That was the only way they could sell their agenda.
This is the fundamental reason why Western birth rates are so low & why we transform our nations with mass immigration.
The progressive culture produced by liberal ideas is so ugly & unlovable that Western people do not care enough about it to pass it on to the next generation.
The progressive culture produced by liberal ideas is so ugly & unlovable that Western people do not care enough about it to pass it on to the next generation.
Even those who embrace this culture know deep down how sick it is. And so they don’t reproduce themselves to reproduce it.
And many of us who DO reject this culture are so demoralised that we struggle to combat it by making & raising enough babies to restore a healthy culture.
And many of us who DO reject this culture are so demoralised that we struggle to combat it by making & raising enough babies to restore a healthy culture.
That means that our culture’s birth rate continues to fall further below the replacement rate. We can’t be bothered to do the hard work to sustain this ugly progressive culture. And that means we continue to import people from other cultures to keep our economies from collapsing.
Conservatives need to recover a sense of the importance of solidarity with our fellow citizens. For too long, we have been too influenced by libertarian ideas about individualism & freedom & economic growth. Those things are very important, but other things are important too.
A lack of solidarity with our fellow citizens is a defining feature of modern Western nations.
Many factors have loosened the bonds between us: too much emphasis on individual rights, globalisation, excessive immigration, rejecting tradition, family breakdown etc.
Many factors have loosened the bonds between us: too much emphasis on individual rights, globalisation, excessive immigration, rejecting tradition, family breakdown etc.
Both the left & the right are to blame for this loss of solidarity. Conservatives used to believe in the national interest. Leftists used to advocate for the working class. But liberal ideas gained undue influence over both conservatives & leftists.
Reagan & Thatcher understandably emphasised individual freedom in their fight against socialism. Ever since then, however, too many conservatives have been too one-dimensional.
In addition to freedom, conservatives need to focus more on the national interest & the common good.
In addition to freedom, conservatives need to focus more on the national interest & the common good.
It made sense for Reagan & Thatcher to focus on fighting for individual freedom in the 1980s. But freedom is not the only important value that conservatives are supposed to fight for.
If conservatives seek to conserve only freedom, they conserve nothing. Including freedom.
If conservatives seek to conserve only freedom, they conserve nothing. Including freedom.
For several decades now, conservatives have been pushing the freedom message to the point where they often sound like right-wing liberals or libertarians. In fact, I would argue that many self-professed conservatives, particularly in America, are actually right-wing liberals.
Everyone wants to live among people who are like them in some way.
Conservatives & provincials want to live among those who share their culture.
Progressives & cosmopolitans want to live among those who share their political beliefs.
Not much political diversity in Manhattan.
Conservatives & provincials want to live among those who share their culture.
Progressives & cosmopolitans want to live among those who share their political beliefs.
Not much political diversity in Manhattan.
Conservatives tend to prefer a relatively high degree of cultural homogeneity.
Progressives tend to prefer a relatively high degree of political homogeneity.
Neither of those preferences are any more legitimate than the other.
Progressives tend to prefer a relatively high degree of political homogeneity.
Neither of those preferences are any more legitimate than the other.
And, no "cultural homogeneity" is not code for "racial homogeneity. Culture is a much more specific thing than race. An Italian & a Norwegian share a race but not a culture. Same with people from Korea & Vietnam, or Nigeria & Kenya. Pan-ethnic culture is not really a thing.
The immigration debate is driven by anxiety about protecting one’s preferred way of life.
People living in rural Nebraska worry that more immigration will transform their way of life.
People living in Brooklyn also worry that less immigration will transform their way of life.
People living in rural Nebraska worry that more immigration will transform their way of life.
People living in Brooklyn also worry that less immigration will transform their way of life.
One solution: let non-citizens live & work in designated big global cities or in certain specified areas, but keep the rest of each nation reserved for citizens.
If people are confident their preferred way of life will be protected, the angst in the immigration debate will fade.
If people are confident their preferred way of life will be protected, the angst in the immigration debate will fade.
Cosmopolitan people like greater cultural diversity. That’s fine.
Provincial people like greater social cohesion. That’s fine too.
So why not make sure that both types of people have places that suit their preferred way of life?
Provincial people like greater social cohesion. That’s fine too.
So why not make sure that both types of people have places that suit their preferred way of life?
Locals getting upset by a large influx of foreigners disrupting life in their community is not “racism”. It’s human nature.
Americans sometimes get upset when a lot of Mexicans move into their area.
Mexicans also sometimes get upset when a lot of Americans move into their area.
Americans sometimes get upset when a lot of Mexicans move into their area.
Mexicans also sometimes get upset when a lot of Americans move into their area.
This is my guess of how much support there is among Australian voters for abortion to be legal in each of these categories (left to right).
1. 80-90%
2. 10-20%
3. 50-60%
Greater public awareness of the data could drive support for less extreme laws in Australia & save lives.
1. 80-90%
2. 10-20%
3. 50-60%
Greater public awareness of the data could drive support for less extreme laws in Australia & save lives.
Right now in Australia we have thousands of unborn children being killed each year after the first trimester for reasons other than severe fetal defects or the health of the mother (including rape victims).
I think many voters would support laws that prevent those deaths.
I think many voters would support laws that prevent those deaths.
Australian abortion data is very incomplete and presented very unclearly. Grok had to make all sorts of assumptions to come up with the estimates in this chart. This lack of clarity also makes the debate about abortion laws less reflective of & responsive to public opinion.
We all have our hobby-horses. One of mine is how nice it would be for the Catholic Church in the UK to sell some of its ugly modern churches & use the £ to reclaim pre-Reformation churches that may be surplus to CoE requirements.
I asked Grok to identify potential candidates.
I asked Grok to identify potential candidates.
On the left, we have St Thomas More, a Catholic Church in Coventry. My eyes are bleeding.
On the right, and just half a mile away, we have St. John the Baptist. It was deemed to be surplus & transferred to the Churches Conservation Trust in 1987.
Surely this is a no-brainer.
On the right, and just half a mile away, we have St. John the Baptist. It was deemed to be surplus & transferred to the Churches Conservation Trust in 1987.
Surely this is a no-brainer.
In London, we have St Aidan's (Catholic) in Acton and St Nicholas' (Anglican) in Chiswick, 2.8 miles away.
Another good potential upgrade.
Another good potential upgrade.
Millions of Australian voters are progressive liberals or leftists. They vote in line with their values.
Sad, but true.
Millions of Australians are conservatives or traditional working-class voters. But many of these voters DON’T vote in line with their values.
Huge problem.
Sad, but true.
Millions of Australians are conservatives or traditional working-class voters. But many of these voters DON’T vote in line with their values.
Huge problem.
Progressive liberals are well represented by the Liberal Party & the Teals.
Progressive leftists are well represented by the ALP & the Greens.
But the Liberal Party does not represent conservatives. And the ALP does not represent traditional working-class voters.
Progressive leftists are well represented by the ALP & the Greens.
But the Liberal Party does not represent conservatives. And the ALP does not represent traditional working-class voters.
Small centre-right parties DO represent the values of conservative & traditional working-class voters.
But until those voters stop supporting the Liberal Party & the ALP, they will continue to waste their votes on politicians who do not represent them.
But until those voters stop supporting the Liberal Party & the ALP, they will continue to waste their votes on politicians who do not represent them.
The number of voters giving their first preference to One Nation in the lower house has surged since Pauline Hanson rejoined the party in 2013.
But what I find even more interesting is that 250,000 of its voters direct their preferences to the ALP.
What drives those voters?
But what I find even more interesting is that 250,000 of its voters direct their preferences to the ALP.
What drives those voters?
One Nation is not the only small centre-right party that seems to attract disaffected ALP voters. If you add all of these parties up, they got about 1.8 million lower house first preferences in the May election & about 530,000 of those votes (29%) went to the ALP on a 2PP basis.
Some proportion of those 530,000 votes would not have actually been, shall we say, very considered. Some voters after they give their first preference don't give a lot of thought to how they number the rest of the boxes. How many voters do that, I have no idea.
National socialism is based on socialism.
White nationalism is based on a pan-European identity.
Neither of those ideas are compatible with the culture of English-speaking peoples & the nations they founded. So neither are compatible with a genuinely Australian nationalism.
White nationalism is based on a pan-European identity.
Neither of those ideas are compatible with the culture of English-speaking peoples & the nations they founded. So neither are compatible with a genuinely Australian nationalism.
English-speaking people do not seek to live under a total state that imposes regimentation & central planning on society.
And English-speaking people do not see themselves as part of some broad category that includes Russians & Germans & Spaniards. Not to mention the French!
And English-speaking people do not see themselves as part of some broad category that includes Russians & Germans & Spaniards. Not to mention the French!
The ANZACS at Gallipoli & the chockos on the Kokoda Track were not fighting for some sort of vision of a pan-European socialism. They were overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic men fighting for an Australia most of them saw as an integral part of the British Empire.
Agent ID is going to be a big part of your life if you are an IAM admin, cybersec, architect, or enterprise ai/agent dev.
There is a lot new to learn and understand. We'll be sharing more in this area over the coming months.
Tip for those attending Experts Live Denmark in Feb next year, sign up for the Identity masterclass.
We will be covering Agent ID
eldk26.expertslive.dk
There is a lot new to learn and understand. We'll be sharing more in this area over the coming months.
Tip for those attending Experts Live Denmark in Feb next year, sign up for the Identity masterclass.
We will be covering Agent ID
eldk26.expertslive.dk
There is a lot of confusion on what constitutes "the Epstein files." So let me explain. (Thread). First, there are the DOJ/FBI federal criminal case files. This is what Congress voted to release this past week. 1.
2. A small subset included with the DOJ files are the federal grand jury files. This is the evidence federal prosecutors present to a grand jury in order to get an indictment. It is a very small percentage of the files. (more)
3. The Oversight Committee Epstein files: these are they files that Congress obtain from Epstein's estate by issuing a subpoena. They include Epstein's calendars, emails and other documents that have been dripping out over they past few months. (more)
1/ The Kyiv Independent is reporting that Trump envoy Steve Witkoff is "running a shadow operation inside the White House in an effort to sideline pro-Ukraine officials", cutting out Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in an effort supported by Vice President J.D. Vance. ⬇️
2/ According to sources quoted by the Kyiv Independent, Witkoff is "running a broader operation with [Russian envoy Kirill] Dmitriev, trying to sideline the pro-Ukraine voices in the Trump administration."
3/ An unnamed White House communications official "is seen as "one of Witkoff's people," feeding media talking points favorable to Witkoff and his Russia-friendly approach."
BREAKING: After talking to @SecRubio, @SenatorRounds announces that the 28 point plan was a Russian document, not a US document.
Full @SenatorRounds: "@SecRubio did make a phone call to us this afternoon. I think he made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives. It is not our recommendation, it is not our peace plan. It is a proposal that was received. And as an intermediary, we have made arrangements to share it. And we did not release it. It was leaked. It was not released by our members or our representatives... This is an opportunity to receive it and that it has been utilized and delivered to the Ukrainians, and that they will have an opportunity to respond. And in doing so, you now have one side being presented and the opportunity for the other side to respond."
Full @SenatorRounds: "@SecRubio did make a phone call to us this afternoon. I think he made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives. It is not our recommendation, it is not our peace plan. It is a proposal that was received. And as an intermediary, we have made arrangements to share it. And we did not release it. It was leaked. It was not released by our members or our representatives... This is an opportunity to receive it and that it has been utilized and delivered to the Ukrainians, and that they will have an opportunity to respond. And in doing so, you now have one side being presented and the opportunity for the other side to respond."
MORE from @SenAngusKing: "The leaked 28-point plan, which, according to @SecRubio, is not of the administration's position--it is essentially the wish list of the Russians."
@SenAngusKing @SecRubio .@SenatorRounds confirms that the 28 point plan was delivered to @SEPeaceMissions: "This was a proposal which was received by someone who has identified and they believed to be representing Russia in this proposal. It was given to @SteveWitkoff."