U.S. — Former Fox News host turned podcaster Tucker Carlson released a groundbreaking 380th consecutive episode criticizing the one country that Carlson says no one is allowed to criticize.

The post There’s nothing real about ‘race realism’ appeared first on spiked.

“Ministers embraced the ‘world’s safest phone’. Then it unravelled” – an article by Georgina Quach in the Financial Times. She writes,

Rather than relying on apps to police harmful content, governments now want to intervene at the operating system level, so guardrails can get ahead of whichever app breaks on to the scene. 

That is why Keir Starmer in June presented an ultimatum to tech companies: install child nudity-blocking software in devices by September or face legislation and fines.

And there is no excuse for dithering, the government’s announcement implied. It said this tech had already been achieved by the British company SafeToNet. Ministers held up SafeToNet as proof point for the proposition that child safety can be built into phones universally and block nudity in real time.

But what appeared to the government to be an “oven-ready” fix is now running into difficulty, after the first smartphone to integrate SafeToNet technology was removed from sale following an investigation into the device’s safety risks. The HMD Fuse, sold by Vodafone, was launched last year as the “first smartphone that protects a child’s innocence by stopping nude content from being filmed, seen, shared and stored”. In January of this year, former ministers Peter Kyle and Jess Phillips starred in a video promoting the phone. Six months later, sales have been suspended.

Why? The answer is alarming:

Then, in July 2026, Moore discovered what he described as a different, serious flaw: an unauthorised person could potentially register as the guardian of another child’s handset and access its live location. According to Moore, the problem was that the pairing relied on the IMEI number, the unique serial code that identifies each handset. He said this number was predictable: part of the number was fixed and the rest could be systematically enumerated and plugged in. He said that meant he could “become the guardian of every child on the platform, which meant I basically had a live map of every child on the system at the time”. 

Ask a socialist critic of capitalism how to define capitalism and you will probably receive an incoherent answer. Defining these ways of social organization is vital and understanding them is even more important.

What is the basic difference between left- and right-leaning people? Many have tried to explain this. Let’s start with accounts in terms of descriptive beliefs …

1. Descriptive Beliefs

Constrained vs. unconstrained visions

Thomas Sowell ascribes the left-right division to differing views of human nature:

• The left has an “unconstrained vision” of human nature: they believe that human nature is malleable and that society can pretty much mold people to be the way society needs them to be.

• The right has a “constrained vision” of human nature, in which there are unchangeable facts of human nature, such as the instinct to place self-interest above the interests of strangers.

There is something to this—it helps explain the division between utopian socialists and capitalists. But it doesn’t explain the left/right positions on abortion, gun control, economic regulations, global warming, homosexuality, or transgenderism. In some cases, the “constrained vs. unconstrained” account suggests the opposite of the actual positions taken by the left (leftists deny that homosexuality or transgenderism are inculcated by society; they also doubt that we can teach businesses to be pro-social and instead think we must use force).

Strict vs. nurturing parents

George Lakoff believes that leftists and rightists differ in their views of proper childhood upbringing:

• The left believes that children need nurturing parents who empathize and provide emotional support.

• The right believes children need strict parents who enforce rules and teach discipline.

Leftists and rightists both see the government as like a parent to the citizens. Hence, leftists want a nurturing government, while rightists want a strict, rule-enforcing government. (I guess only libertarians deny that we are children.)

This account fails to explain left/right positions on abortion, gun control, or economic regulation. When it comes to regulation, the left acts more like a strict father, rather than a nurturing mother.

2. A Challenge for all Models

A challenge for attempts to explain the left-right division is that left-right positions are malleable, e.g.:

• Support for free speech used to be a left-wing position; today it is a right-wing position.

• The right used to be clearly more hawkish on foreign policy, and the left more dovish. Today, I would say the left has become more hawkish than the right (though there is division on each side).

• The right in America used to be very clearly the anti-Russia side (which fit with being more hawkish); today, the left is more anti-Russia.

• It used to be the right but it is now the left that is more likely to emphasize the importance of listening to the authorities and the recognized experts in your society.

Tribalism is a big part of the story: if a prominent person on “your side”—say, a President from your party—takes up a position contrary to what your side has hitherto thought, you might change your view to fall in line on that issue. Also, if the other side shifts their position on an issue to agree with what you hitherto thought, you might change your own position to continue to oppose the other side. This phenomenon limits any attempt to explain in a unified way the left/right positions on various issues.

However, it remains possible that each side has certain core positions they would not modify, while they are willing to change more peripheral positions.

Read more