Public

> the very small number of teens that do go on puberty blockers or have surgery do so after informed conversations with doctors and therapists.

Those 'informed conversations' with 'doctors and therapists' which the 'very small number of teens' have are neither informed nor based on anything resembling proven efficacy of the proposed treatment regimes. The recent leak of the WPATH files [1] reveals that its members know they are creating victims and not getting “informed consent.”. For those who have not heard of WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health), the American Medical Association, The Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Paediatrics and thousands of doctors worldwide rely on them. It is considered the leading global authority on “gender medicine.”

If you don't want to read the whole thing - which I, again, think you should do given your position on this subject - here's some relevant quotes (taken from 'WPATH Excerpts', [2]):

- Patients with dissociative identity disorder are regarded as having the capacity to consent to hormones

- So are patients with severe mental health issues

- Mentally ill and homeless people are regarded as suitable for referring for genital surgery

- There is a lack of concern regarding young people regretting sacrificing their fertility

- Concerning whether is it reasonable to expect children and young adolescents to grasp the effects of “gender-affirming care:” “[It is] out of their developmental range to…

The report seems to exclusively focus on how the nuclear lobby works, and how allegedly all support for nuclear is either ideological or astroturfed. How this "undermines the EU's energy future" (I suppose closing the German nuclear fleet aided EU's energy future?) is not explained beyond a one-sentence reference:

When, in 2019, the Rutte III government commissioned studies that concluded that nuclear energy would make reaching the 2050 climate targets more expensive, it organised, with input from the industrial lobby, a counter-study that claimed the opposite.

Given that the German government knowingly lied about the viability of nuclear, claiming fuel rods could not be acquired fast enough after fuel-rod producers told them otherwise, and used such nonsense arguments like "Germany lacks natural gas, not electricity" (while gas and coal are used to generate electricity) [1], I am very skeptical of anti-nuclear studies, and until proven otherwise, assume they are written by activists working backwards from the conclusion they want to reach.

For another example of this "logic", look at Why the nuclear phase-out was the enabler of the energy transition [2] - the "why" turns out to be because the government increased funding to wind and solar at the same time as it shut down nuclear. In other words, there is no causal link.

[1] https://public.substack.com/p/anti-nuke-greens-menace-europe

[2]…

On the other hand, it is extremely difficult for an outside observer, looking at the results of the New Approach, to judge whether it is not scaling well because of a lack of funding or because it fundamentally does not scale well. It can also be challenging for the people involved to realize that their approach isn't working (cf. "sunk cost fallacy", "it is difficult to get a man to understand a point when his salary depends on him not understanding it", "confirmation bias"). Often, the approaches are not necessarily poorly funded but rather inefficiently managed - education and healthcare would be the prime examples in the US context. The US spends a roughly approximate amount of its public budget on healthcare as the UK does. At other times, advocates for an approach to solving a social issue are ideologically motivated more than results-oriented. A case in point is the difference between LA's approach to the homelessness crisis and NYC's take (https://public.substack.com/p/three-times-more-homeless-die-under?s=r)

Australia is the last country I would trust with the ability to view private communications between citizens, given they are trying hard to normalize censorship of online content. They recently ordered Twitter to take down video of a stabbing, and required Twitter to do so even outside of Australia. Musk and Twitter are fighting the order, and correctly refusing to censor speech outside of Australian jurisdiction. Meanwhile the stabbing victim himself doesn’t want the video censored:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stabbed-sydney-bishop-backs-musks-bid-to-keep-footage-of-his-attack-on-x-court-told

Australia’s online safety czar’s perspectives on implementing worldwide censorship orders through a network of coordinating czars is dystopian:

https://public.substack.com/p/cia-recruit-is-pursuing-global-internet

Backdoors or bans on encryption will only empower this censorship industrial complex.

These are what I'm remembering re: Germany and reduced wind. This was during winter:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28521533

https://public.substack.com/p/german-emissions-from-electricity-674

We do have transmission, but it is lossy and expensive, and the places it is cheaper to transmit from are geographically adjacent and are going to have similar solar and wind conditions.

If you're talking about Texas' gas plants, yeah, that was not good. But gas plants are an essential part of preventing blackouts in a wind/solar grid, so I'm not sure this is a point in wind/solar's favor.

https://youtu.be/N8Nf56srwcA

Includes Musk saying "Old Twitter was basically an arm of the government... It was a State publication."

more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12695205/elon-musk-joe-rogan-george-soros-twitter-x.html

Amazing how hard it is to get a search engine to find these things, innit.

Most of the coverage gets published on substack: https://public.substack.com/p/ctil-files-1-us-and-uk-military-contractors