Jordan Peterson made a profound point on Chris Williamson’s podcast. When God dies, a lot of unexpected things die with Him, including science. Science isn’t some purely neutral, secular tool. It rests on deeply religious assumptions: that truth exists, that it’s knowable, that pursuing it is good, and that the universe makes sense. These aren’t scientific claims, they’re metaphysical, rooted in a religious worldview. The universities themselves grew out of monasteries. Without that deeper foundation, science eventually stops being about truth and becomes just another tool for power, ideology, or convenience. You lose the reason to be honest when the data gets inconvenient. Do you think science can survive long-term without any belief in objective truth or a higher moral order?

This is complete rubbish To criticise a religion is not racist. It's culturalist The difference ? you can choose one, not the other other Now, many of us prefer some cultures to others For example, I prefer a culture that does not permit Female Genital Mutilation, Child Marriage, Animal Torture, Total Humiliation of Women, and Execution of People from other Belief Systems, and which is not intent on World Domination Call me old-fashioned...

The British people are in the absurd position of having to defend their country from their own politicians.

The BBC Has Ruled. Brexit Damaged The Economy. No Further Debate Required. The BBC's editorial complaints unit has decided that the negative economic impact of Brexit is now a settled fact. Not a contested judgement. Not one side of a live debate. A fact, in the same category as man-made climate change, requiring no balancing view. The ruling followed a Radio 4 Today programme segment featuring Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, alongside Liam Byrne and Sir John Gieve, both long-standing advocates of closer EU alignment. All three agreed Brexit had damaged growth. The presenter, Katya Adler, did not challenge the premise or introduce a dissenting voice. A complaint followed. The ECU's response is the revealing part. It acknowledged the segment failed to "acknowledge the alternative case" for pursuing opportunities outside the EU rather than realignment with it. That part of the complaint was upheld. But the central complaint, that three pro-EU voices agreeing with each other on air is not balance, was dismissed. The reasoning given was that this reflected "the consensus among economists" and there was no "significant body of economic opinion" on the other side. This is worth pausing on. The BBC is not claiming it found balance. It is claiming balance was unnecessary because one side of the argument does not meaningfully exist. The institution that is legally required to be impartial has ruled itself the arbiter of which questions are still open and which are closed, and Brexit has just been moved into the closed file. The economics itself does not support the certainty on display. The headline figure driving much of this narrative, an 8 per cent hit to GDP since 2016, comes from an NBER paper built on a "synthetic control" model that constructs a hypothetical non-Brexit Britain from a basket of comparator countries. The largest weighting in that basket, over 60 per cent, is the United States, a country currently riding an AI investment boom and a separate fiscal stimulus. The model also weights Estonia and Greece more heavily than France or Germany. On a straightforward per capita basis against France and Germany, the actual comparators, Britain's performance since 2016 sits roughly in line with both. An 8 per cent gap simply isn't visible. This is a model producing a number that then gets reported as "the consensus," which the BBC then cites as the reason no alternative view is required. That loop, model produces number, number becomes consensus, consensus becomes fact, fact requires no balance, is the mechanism. It does not require a conspiracy. It requires an institution that has decided which conclusions are respectable and which are not, and which then treats its own prior decision as evidence. The same posture has been on display all week. A government department can decide its diversity targets are lawful without seeking legal advice to check. A police force can decide a book about dismantling "inner white supremacy" is leadership training. A broadcaster can decide an economic question is closed and that deciding so does not breach its own impartiality rules. In each case, the institution marks its own homework, and the mark is always a pass. None of this requires Brexit to have been a triumph. Britain's economy has genuine problems, most of them unrelated to single market membership. But a state broadcaster, funded by compulsory licence fee under threat of prosecution, has now formally placed one of the most consequential political decisions in modern British history beyond the reach of its own impartiality obligations. Reform's Lee Anderson called it being "blinkered by groupthink." The more precise description is an institution that has stopped being able to tell the difference between its own assumptions and the facts. "The BBC is not claiming it found balance. It is claiming balance was unnecessary because one side of the argument does not meaningfully exist."

🚨 THE PEOPLE WHO SAW THE PLAN RESIGNED THE PERSON WHO HASN'T SEEN IT THINKS IT'S GREAT. That is the current state of government.

This is a good point - Why don’t homeless people group together to change the world for the better?

Pathetic - lots of us earn less than NHS nurses and we arn’t starving. Elon is building multiple businesses and creating jobs and value. When will we rid the UK of this leftist mind rot?

Every single person who still cringes at the memory of trying to bullshit their way through an interview or exam question: today, the slate is wiped clean. Set down your burden of shame. Nothing - nothing, I say - could touch this.

“He is the Prime Minister that is fit for the moment that we’re in” Can we not have a Prime Minister who’s fit to get us out of the moment we’re now in?

Why should women be put through an inconvenient process likely to end up in a costly tribunal appearance to prove the need for female only spaces, when all men have to say is “I am a woman” to be considered a woman?

Elon Musk is doing exactly what he should be doing with his money as a trillionaire: > innovating technology > creating millionaires, paying high wages and employing thousands of people > donating money to build schools > helping human civilization advance If there’s anyone in the world doing GOOD with their money it’s Elon Musk.

$NBIS, $RKLB, $CRWV and $ALAB are all joining the Nasdaq 100. Every ETF tracking the Nasdaq 100, including QQQ with $300B in assets now has to buy these stocks whether they want to or not. What's interesting is the type of companies getting added: - AI cloud infrastructure - Space - AI data centers - AI chips $NBIS is up 160% this year and just grew revenue 684% YoY. $RKLB has become one of the market's favorite space stocks. $CRWV is right in the middle of the AI buildout. $ALAB is helping connect all that AI hardware together. And $SPCX just IPO'd today at $1.77 trillion and is already being fast-tracked into the Nasdaq 100 within 15 days. The market is telling you exactly what themes it cares about.

Elon is the closest thing we have to a real life superhero.

The most racist speech in the last 25 years. Ex Scottish PM Humza Yousaf complains that there are too many white Scots in Scotland. - @RadioGenoa

Truth 🤪

Elon Musk and I have a combined net worth of more than $1 trillion.

SHOCKING: Gay men voting against importing millions of people who want them dead

Kemi says nothing revolutionary or outrageous - just succinct home truths that feel so satisfying because we’ve been starved of seeing common-sense views reflected back at us. I love her more and more every day. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Only 100% truthful answers please. Do you believe that @Keir_Starmer and the policies of @UKLabour are damaging the mental health of the United United. Yes No Please vote and repost. Im on a Ghost ban myself.