It's funny how so many people who claim to worship "democracy" also dismiss nationalism as selfish xenophobia. Democracy is absolutely meaningless without strong national sovereignty. Under globalism, citizens of any given state have little influence over how they are governed.

Nationalism isn't just mindless tribalism. People are correct to insist their government has a responsibility TO THEM that vastly outweighs any imagined responsibility to foreign governments they have absolutely no influence over, or foreign populations.

We've seen that point taken to absurd extremes by the Left during the Trump administration, with whack-job judges ruling that foreigners have rights that EXCEED those of American citizens, including absolute rights to enter the U.S. and influence its government.

And we're frequently told that some international elite "consensus" completely overrides our ability to make individual decisions - or even to petition our own government, or vote for representatives who disagree with whatever "the world" has supposedly decided.

All of that is the absolute negation of "democracy" in any form, including the dangerous mob rule and majoritarianism that the Left selectively advocates. (Notice they always have a list of things nobody gets to vote on anymore, no matter how strong the majority vote would be.)

Our pretensions to civilization have become very thin. Political violence was legitimized last year and is spreading wildly now. "Might makes right" is clearly the only "principle" behind freedom of speech. That's why Chinese Communists will never be censored by Big Tech.

When every "principle" becomes nothing but a ruthless exercise of power, it's not surprising that a growing number of people conclude they must demonstrate some sort of power in order to be taken seriously. Violence is the crudest exercise of power.

A well-run civilization makes it clear *universally* that violence is absolutely unacceptable. Giving free passes for irresponsible rhetoric and destruction to groups favored by the dominant political ideology of the State undermines that message.

We must also people peaceable means of expressing themselves and controlling their own lives, to relieve the pressures that can lead to violent outbursts and other forms of lawlessness. The less healthy discourse and freedom of action you have, the more pressure builds up.

It's dangerous when large numbers of people begin drawing the conclusion that might makes right, that laws and principles bend easily for those who have the political strength to bend them. Might makes right is the code of anarchy and barbarism, the antithesis of civilization.

I'm teaching a class on race and after reading bell hooks we've moved on to @JohnHMcWhorter. Fact: liberals/progressives generally will never critique the poor moral choices of disadvantaged blacks and tend to blame black morality on "white racism." https://t.co/GEvSKupDox via

Meanwhile conservatives, generally, struggle to confess that Jim Crow was a (Christian) conservative movement. This is why we can't make any progress in 2020. The idea that black people *and* white people *both* have zero moral culpability on our past or present is fiction.

It's not "racist" for a white male to say black men in urban areas commit more crimes in their own neighborhoods and, therefore, are more likely to have contact with police. And it's false that men who commit violent crime & property crime are only doing so because of poverty.

Yes, evangelical Christians, in Jesus name, supported and defended Jim Crow, resisted integration, and struggle with white nationalism as an idol in 2020. Absolutely! Many of their pastors are cowards for never addressing or aiding and abetting it.

Yes, there are cultural patterns in disadvantaged black communities that are not derivative of white racism but emerge from the fact that black men & women, just like white men & women, chose, on purpose, actions that lack virtue & wisdom. Why? B/c all humans are morally flawed.

Every modern effort to crush free speech begins as a crusade against "disinformation." China's massive Internet censorship apparatus was initially justified as an effort to control the spread of false information, and the Chinese state still describes it that way.

Censors begin by claiming that they only want to control the spread of deliberate falsehoods and push back against propaganda campaigns. They always begin by saying their primary concern is disinformation spread by hostile foreign powers. China constantly says that to this day.

The definition of "disinformation" begins to expand as the censors seek more power. Soon they aren't just going after DELIBERATE falsehoods pushed by malevolent conspiracies - they're suppressing everything from honest mistakes to predictions and "wrong" opinions.

It soon becomes clear that the censorship rules - like all other rules in totalitarian societies - are not applied evenly. The ruling party and its friends are judged much less harshly than dissidents. They get far more latitude to make unfounded statements or outright lies.

The censors move on, suppressing not just "disinformation" or demonstrably false statements, but even completely true statements that lack some vital "context." The censors declare that even pure truth is deceptive when it's not packaged and delivered "correctly."

Unless we pass laws which support people to enable them to self-isolate properly, any improvements to test & trace will have marginal impact and cases will simply spiral out of control once again as we ease lockdown in December.

A short thread on what we can do and why 👇
1/

Improving the currently poor rates of self-isolation is actually the key point, which many scientists, politicians, & commentators do still seem to be missing.

This requires good public health communication, proper support for those who need to self-isolate, & trust.
2/

Massive testing and tracing will only significantly reduce
transmission if positive cases isolate effectively. Yet
currently fewer than 20% of those who should isolate are fully adherent.

I don't think I need to explain why it's so critical to improve these rates.

3/

Survey data shows intention to adhere to test/trace/isolate behaviours is higher than self-reported adherence: whilst 76% of people intend to share contacts, only 50% of people correctly recognise symptoms &
just 12% get a test, 18% isolate, & 11% of contacts isolate properly.
4

Self-reported ability to self-isolate
is three times lower in those who earn less than £20,000 per year or have less than £100 saved.

5/

Human, local, oriented, taken, and iterative, these are the change-harvester's bywords. In iterative change, we not only accept the reality of gradual stepwise refinement -- changing what we've already changed before -- we actually anticipate it and take advantage of it.

Before we begin: Folks, I know many are celebrating last week's results . I see them as one small pass towards the change I seek. Take a short break, then it's back to work?

Black lives matter.
Voting rights matter.
Women matter.

Stay safe, stay strong, stay angry, stay kind.

(And a *second* prefatory note: I've been not writing for six weeks. It was a combination of several factors, including illness, distraction, and the need to finish a gig. I'm happy to be back at content, now, but also very nervous. Bear with me while I regain my sea legs.)

With iteration, I think a great starting point for the concept is to watch just about any youtube video where a skilled artist draws a realistic rendering. What you will see almost inevitably is a direct implementation of iterative change.

The strokes begin quite broadly, faintly indicating the broad contours of the subject. Experience is relevant here: those who are most familiar with drawing that particular kind of subject, will make contours that seem "right" more quickly than those less experienced.

When a new president is sworn in, they gets told a lot of secret stuff - launch codes, backup plans, etc. But one of the best-kept presidential secrets is the "Enemies Briefcase," a collection of "presidential emergency action documents" (PEADs).

https://t.co/A6Jh3Gkip7

1/

These aren't just revelations about the fallback plans for things like a nuclear strike - they are a meticulously maintained collection of emergency authorities that the administrative branch claims it is entitled to.

2/

These authorities are analyzed in legal memos that give the president to unilaterally declare an emergency "imposing martial law, suspending habeas corpus, seizing control of the internet, imposing censorship, and incarcerating so-called subversives."

3/

The PEADs were incredibly well-kept secrets, known only through fragmentary redaction failures, appropriaions and declassifications...Until Trump starting bragging on 'em:

"I have the right to do a lot of things that people don’t even know about." -Donald J Trump

4/

PEADs are particularly ominous given how many non-secret emergency powers the president has - more than 100 powers granted by Congress and never rescinded, dating back to the Civil War, from freezing bank accounts to deploying troops domestically.

5/

How long should trans females be made to reduce their levels of circulating testosterone should prior to competing in the women competition?

Gooren found that during the first 12 months muscle mass (area) was decreased by 9.4% & hemoglobin levels by 14% in 20 transwomen (M2F trans) treated with an estrogen-based regimen that reduced circulating T concentrations from the male range to the female range.

Conversely, in 17 transmen (F2M transgender) treated for the first time with testosterone for 12 months (which increased circulating testosterone levels to a mean of 31 nmol/L), muscle mass increased by 19.2% and hemoglobin by

The muscle mass findings remained stable between 1 and 3 years after initiation of treatment, although fat mass continued to change between 1 & 3 years of T treatment. although with disproportionately greater effect on muscle strength than on muscle

This study did not report muscle strength, but other studies of T dose-response relationships for muscle mass and strength show consistently positively correlation,

I jumped in my time-machine & landed in the middle of the 2035 World Athletics Championships in Paris.

It was 800 metres finals day, but to my surprise, there were 5 races scheduled, not two.
1-

On inquiring, I learnt there had been a shake-up: the "men's" and "women's" classifications were no more; instead the classification system changed to one that was based on functional ability.
2-

Rather than labelling athletes as male or female , they were placed in a racing category based on the movements their body can perform, related to the sport they compete in.

3-

Finding the balance between sex, gender, human rights,  & the sciences and fairness in sport is without a doubt sports greatest challenge.

4-

There are many factors that significantly affect the competitive edge in sport such as nutrition, age, height, weight, coaching & training facilities, & other genetic and biological variations like oxygen-carrying capacity.
5-

You know why they didn't try anything like this in the 1970s? Because a generation which remembered WW2 & were still strong enough would not have let them. Politicians were scared of people's reactions back then. They were literally scared for their lives. What happened?

Also, the State did not simply consist of politicians backed by a few regime journalists. There was a much stronger judiciary & military. We would already have seen the military remove deranged politicians leading any country into ruin like this.

The military would have turned against any government which indicated their role was to swab violate children or help inject people with unsafe experimental RNA altering drugs for a virus with a 99.7+% survival rate. They would have taken power by now. What happened?

The most important lesson we can teach our children are the lessons the parents who remembered WW2 taught theirs: how to say NO to a government that is going in a direction you disagree with before it's too late.

This has to start at refusing schools being turned into biosecurity propaganda outposts, asymptomatic testing stations, anti-science brainwashing institutions on masks, repeated swab violation of children's bodies for no gain & to artificially create false positive disruption

The other day I was accused: “you can’t just make up a new theory of gender based on your vague feelings of discontent.” Hold my beer.

The old "theory" of gender, (as if it had scientific grounding) the one you can literally lose your livelihood for opposing, though only if you are a man, seems to me to have been fashioned exclusively by women feeling vague discontent

Quite on my own I had been reading about some of the early feminist texts, and it happens that modern gender theorists mostly disavow them. Obfuscation and dissimulation are to women as violent imposition of will is to men

The view of xerstory laid out in such books as The Second Sex is such a powerful and compelling lens that nearly all moderns look through it. We don’t even see it, the world now looks alien without it, and yet it colors everything

We must destroy the claim that women are “historically oppressed” and that this bottomless well of injustice demands a similarly endless ream of legislation to nullify all male advantages.

In "The Feeling of Power" (Asimov, 1958), ubiquitous computation causes humanity to forget the fundamentals of math, including how to count. A technician rediscovers it by studying computer schematics, and the tech spreads to the military. This is an allegory for Pickup Artistry

The common misconception is that Pickup Artistry (hereafter, PUA) is about "tricking" women into bed with you. In fact it has nothing to do with this, because you can't trick a woman into bed any more than you can trick a cat into eating a treat. The cat is complicit

At the turn of the century, millennial men were in a similar situation to the erstwhile mathematicians in Asimov's story; in a future of ubiquitous sex, we forgot how to seduce women, because we forgot the fundamentals of being a man

Notice how just saying this, "how to be a man" creates tension. Being a man is not the same as merely being male. When I stand up and tell you this, it's audacious, because if you don't match my definition, that implies your manhood is deficient

When a man says, "I am a man" he is making a declaration to the world, and I see today how often men are embarrassed to describe themselves this way. Instead they say "I'm a guy," or "I'm a dude." This is how slaves talk, when they doubt their own manhood

I have a passion to help &  educate other trans athletes about their own bodies. I suffer many adverse health conditions from not understanding my own post surgery endocrine system early enough before it had damaged my health.
1-

This article shows the consequences to health when trans girls experience low T. This is important to educate everyone because in this conversation those against us compare men's performance versus women.
2-


This article also shows trans girls have very different endocrine systems to a healthy male and as such they should not be compared to men when talking about sports

The only comparison you can make between a trans female athlete and a male would be to compare the trans girl to a male that has either been surgically or chemically sterilized.
4-

You won't even find men competing in elite sports in this health state without being prescribed T replacement therapy which is not available to a trans woman like me in sports.
5-

Intolerance is a trait of a leader who elevates everyone around him.

If you want to lead, you must become intolerant.

Thread

Know that the degree of your tolerance is disproportional to the quality of your leadership.

The more tolerant you are, the lower the quality.

Because its not easy to uphold strong qualities & values.

Tolerance leads to erosion of your high standards.

Your responsibility as a leader is to create a culture where, whether its your followers, employees, family,

can grow and become exceptional in what you're directing them towards.

You need to protect this culture & cultivate it.

The protection of this culture will depend on

-your conviction to your leadership objective

-the values you need to uphold to attain this objective

-rejecting values that directly conflict with the attainment of your objective

Every time you compromise your leadership by accomodating lesser values through tolerance,

you not only weaken your own conviction, but you disrespect those who follow you,

who rely on your resilience to maintain the coherence & integrity of the culture you seek to build.