"There's a hole in the sky Where the rain gets in But it's ever so small That's why rain is thin" S. Milligan Voltaire. Burke. JFK. MLK. Sun Tzu
bit north of 34th parallel S
Joined May 2015
- Tweets15.4K
- Following1.8K
- Followers1K
- Likes138K
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
🚨BREAKING: The Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 has passed in the House of Representatives by Labor, Independents and the Greens.
96 YES, 38 NO.
Voted against by Liberals, Nationals, One Nation and Rebekha Sharkie.
Andrew Hastie didn’t appear at any divisions.
This bill will force online businesses to conduct annual risk assessments, report to eSafety and face penalties for non-compliance.
It gives the government power to influence platform design features and impose age-assurance requirements.
It authorises eSafety to operate covert “sock puppet” accounts for government surveillance and information warfare.
It will classify content that “encourages or promotes hostile attitudes towards women or gender equality” as harmful, including legitimate criticism of feminism.
Public hearings are set for 9–10 November, with the inquiry report due 20 November. The bill must still pass the Senate.
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
Congrats on ushering in “Black Mirror” style totalitarianism.
Section 25E(1)(c) makes “material or conduct that encourages or promotes hostile attitudes towards women or gender equality” a harm platforms must keep from every user they can’t prove is an adult.
Section 25E(1)(f) adds “any other material or conduct ... that may cause serious harm to children.”
And your team added in the bill labeling the encouraging of someone to “take their own life” as “seriously harmful” — I take it that's so you can censor people who wish you dead — except “in the context of voluntary assisted dying.” Sick.
Oh, and the evidence that your Social Services Minister cited on "Insiders" that it takes “an average of 23 minutes” to be fed “violent misogynistic content” is garbage science. There was a Dublin City University experiment with ten fake accounts on ten phones.
Totalitarianism by the stupid class to prevent anyone from criticizing you. You're an embarassment.
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
A simple question. A straightforward answer required. Instead, we got a masterclass in political waffle.
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
If a small business organises a women's only event and a biological male turns up demanding to enter, the Albanese Government can’t even confirm what the law is.
Only the Coalition will protect the rights of biological women and girls!
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
The Albanese Government confirmed they would not support changes to the Sex Discrimination Act to protect biological women.
What a disgrace!
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
Women in Australia cannot hold an event for biological women only, we all know this now, these people in the government that should provide clarity for all,talk in riddles and refuse to answer the question even though they know the answer as they are the reason women now have no rights and women can now also mean males.
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
To understand why Western leaders all sound the same, you need to understand how a system that has captured its own institutions keeps producing elites aligned on the worst possible line.
In 2004, Klaus Schwab created the Forum of Young Global Leaders. Every year, the WEF selects a few hundred people under 40. You don't apply. You get nominated by people already inside and vetted by people already inside. Then come the annual summits, Davos, and a two-week executive program at Harvard Kennedy School built around global governance, climate, global health and "21st century leadership."
Emmanuel Macron: class of 2016, the same year he launched his presidential campaign. Gabriel Attal: listed by the WEF itself among its notable members. In 2017, at Harvard, Schwab bragged that his network "penetrates the cabinets" of governments. His words, not mine.
Now here's the mistake most critics make. They imagine a brainwashing camp. Two weeks at Harvard don't rewire anyone. The YGL program doesn't create the mindset. It certifies it.
The capture happened upstream. The formatting starts at 18. Sciences Po, ENA, Harvard, Columbia, Yale Law. Ten years of being graded by people who already hold the consensus. You learn fast that the reward doesn't go to whoever is right, but to whoever restates the room's beliefs most elegantly. Every essay, every oral exam, every internship in a ministry or a consulting firm teaches the same lesson: the frame is given, your job is to optimize inside it.
Obama never went through YGL. He didn't need to. Columbia, Harvard Law, president of the Law Review. Same factory, American edition.
So by the time the WEF calls, the product is finished. The program just adds the final layer: flattery. You're told you're one of the few people under 40 who will shape the world. You spend your summers with ministers, CEOs, royals and Nobel laureates who all agree with each other. Imagine what that does to a 35-year-old ego.
That's the profile it produces. Very high verbal intelligence, very low dissent. Brilliant at defending the frame, never trained to question it. And a narcissism fed by a network that confirms, year after year, that you belong to the elect. Combine the two and you get leaders who are never punished for being wrong, as long as they're wrong together.
Immigration is the perfect test case. Obama, Macron, Attal can tighten a law, announce deportation numbers, harden their tone before an election. Obama deported more people than any president before him. But listen to how they talk about it. For them, immigration is never a civilizational question. It's a flow to manage, a labor shortage to fill, a demographic curve to correct, a moral duty to perform. Whether a nation has the right to remain itself never even enters the frame. Not because they've answered the question. Because their education taught them it isn't a legitimate one.
That's why the voter who says "my town has changed and I'm worried" gets a lecture instead of an answer. The leader isn't even lying to him. It's worse: he genuinely cannot see what the voter sees. Twenty years of formatting taught him that this perception is a bias to correct, not a reality to address.
That's the real problem with captured institutions. Not a secret plot. A monoculture. Same schools, same summits, same Davos panels, same vocabulary from Paris to Ottawa to Washington. When every leader is selected by the consensus and rewarded by the consensus, the consensus stops being tested against reality.
And a ruling class that never gets confronted with reality ends up governing a country that only exists in its own slide decks.
Before you vote, ask one question about every candidate: who formatted them, and who do they still need to impress?
🤖 Made with AI
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
You distributed a dirt file on her. You spread hatred of your enemies on state funded media and social media. And now you’re blaming social media so you can censor it.
Huh. A "dirt sheet" sure looks a lot like "hate speech."
@AlboMP wouldn't want to have to censor that kind of thing now would he
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
Over the last decade, politicians, NGOs, and journalists across the West have blamed online speech for real-world political violence.
In Australia recently, politicians and others blamed social media for an attack on a left-wing member of parliament, Helen Haines, who was run over by a man in his car.
“We’ve got these big US social media companies and their business model, to me, seems pretty incompatible,” said Senator David Pocock after the attack. “That’s something we’ve got to look very hard at as a country and as elected representatives.”
Said Bill Shorten, a former Labor leader who now runs the University of Canberra, “I think that some people, through the algorithms of the big tech bros and social media, have been radicalized online.”
Mike Burgess, director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), Australia’s FBI, decried a “permissive environment of violence.” And Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police Krissy Barrett said the things politicians said online “does have a direct correlation to what we see in terms of threats and abuse.”
But it was clear within hours that the alleged attacker of the Australian MP was intoxicated and likely mentally ill, and within days it was revealed that he and his family had been friends with her for years.
A source close to the investigation said he “was known to police” and that “It is understood he has undergone a mental health assessment.” People online quickly discovered that the alleged attacker had posted regularly about climate change and Gaza and that the head of the Australian Green Party followed him on X.
As such, he attacked the member of Parliament closest to his apparent views, which challenges the notion that his politics motivated him. As for Barrett, she declined to give a single example of things people said online resulting in real-world violence.
Meanwhile, correlation is not causation. Killers may have consumed violent media, but so too did practically everyone else in society. It would make sense that would-be killers, who often fantasize about their violence before doing it, would consume more violent content. And so if there is a relationship, it could show the opposite causal direction.
Moreover, relying on the testimony of killers, many of whom suffer from personality disorders or mental illness, is irrational. The man who shot Ronald Reagan said he did so out of an obsession with Jodie Foster in Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver.” Nobody proposed censoring “Taxi Driver,” Scorsese movies, or Foster, and yet politicians and bureaucrats around the world proposed mass online censorship because the Buffalo shooter said he was inspired by Christchurch....
xitter.cf/shellenberger/status/2…
Please subscribe now to support our defense of free speech, fund our award-winning investigative journalism, and read the rest of the article.
xitter.cf/shellenberger/status/2…
You're unable to view this Tweet because it's only available to the Subscribers of the account owner.
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
There seems to be some confusion amongst some people, so I will explain it as clearly as I can:
Australia’s sex discrimination act was created for women, on the basis of our sex. When it was enacted in 1984 (ominous year, in hindsight) employment was a big part of it.
There was a part of the act, section 7D, that allowed “special measures” where things exclusively for women weren’t even classed as discrimination, basically when it was being a woman is what actually mattered in the situation. Specific employment/opportunity provisions and… woman-only spaces fell/fall into this category.
In 2013, the Gillard amendments introduced “gender identity” while taking the definitions of woman & man out of the act. Sex was never defined, but in a normal world it didn’t have to be. It could only have meant one thing (a mistake, again in hindsight).
By the time the trans absurdity hit fever pitch, Australian institutions were captured. This included those meant to be the custodians of the SDA. Suddenly, all they cared about was “gender identity” aka transgender ideology.
When the Tickle v Giggle case came along, it started with an Australian Human Rights Commission complaint. To settle it, aka not have it advance to federal court, I was expected to just agree with transgender ideology. I don’t.
I wish I could say I completely understood the magnitude at the time, but it’s almost impossible to. You think you do, but you don’t really until it hits you like a bus.
But what I did know, instinctively, was that if I folded, I couldn’t live with it, nor would it help because all it signaled was that “we” would just accept it if threatened. I found myself in a position to challenge the absurdity, and I did, because I knew not doing it would have been worse no matter what.
Obviously, everyone knows now, the courts ruled against me in every way they could. From what a woman is, to 7D, to damages. I lost - and have lost - everything.
But what does it mean to everyone else in reality?
It means the sex discrimination commissioner told the court that the ordinary meaning of woman includes men who claim to be women, and the court accepted that. Men who claim to be women are women in Australia, via the only legislation they have to validate it.
It means that for every aspect of the SDA, per the SDC’s demand, woman includes men who claim to be women. From employment to women only spaces to pregnancy protections, because of section 7D.
Did we warn about this in our court submissions and arguments? Yes. That was actually our entire case. You can read it. It’s all publicly available.
The high court said that we would have no possibility of success. We were arguing that women is adult human female and this matters in, tada, section 7D. That was it. The high court said “hell no way”. The high court is captured too.
As it stands, due to legal precedent, a special measure for women based on sex does not provide a defense to gender identity discrimination. That means that all special measures for women fall to gender identity, which will only be used by men who claim to be women, and includes - tada - employment, and women only spaces.
It means that men who claim to be women have more rights than actual women, while simultaneously taking away our rights.
I don’t know how many more times I could say the “Tickle v Giggle” case is about more than “just” one app, I’ve been saying it for almost 5 years, but I will continue to do it until everyone understands. They wiped women’s rights off the map.
It’s a f—ing mess. It doesn’t work. It’s incoherent. It’s ideological. It writes women out of law. It’s corruption. It’s totalitarian. It’s bullsh-t.
It’s the test of any government: are you ok with legislating a lie?
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
Far from causing a mass collapse, previous high-carbon epochs fostered some of the richest expansions of biosphere diversity in Earth’s history.
The long-term geological record reaffirms that atmospheric CO₂ and global surface temperature do not move together in simple lockstep. Carbon dioxide levels were 10 to 15 times higher than today during peaks in the early Paleozoic era, 538.8 to 251.9 million years ago.
In another notable example, extensive ice sheets covered major continental areas during the Late Ordovician glaciation 440 million years ago, even as CO₂ levels exceeded 4,000 ppm. By contrast, today's CO₂ hovers around 425 ppm, rising and falling with the rhythms of the seasons.
This deep-time perspective is reconstructed from marine sediment cores, fossil isotope data and the physical evidence engraved in the bedrock. It renders modern apocalyptic panics around atmospheric carbon decidedly flawed.
These records are a permanent blueprint of nature across the rise of multicellular life and the broader miracle of Earth's biology. This surviving record is written in stone, and it directly challenges the narrative of a climate emergency.
Earth's climate is governed by a complex matrix of natural drivers - ocean circulation, cloud albedo, solar irradiance, and orbital cycles - of which CO₂ is merely one piece in a planetary jigsaw puzzle.
In the broad arc of history, our current geological epoch (the Quaternary) sits near historic lows for both atmospheric carbon and planetary temperature. During recent glacial peaks, CO₂ fell to approximately 180 ppm - dangerously close to the 150 ppm threshold where land plants cease photosynthetic activity.
The modest rise in CO₂ over the industrial era has effectively pulled the biosphere further away from that biological floor, stimulating global vegetation growth and leaf expansion confirmed by NASA satellite observations.
The UN narrative relies on suppressing doubt and evading foundational questions. Science is at its best when it welcomes a search for truth rather than relying on dogma.
When we look at Earth’s full history, CO₂ stands out as an essential building block of a thriving biological world. To reduce this grand planetary epic to a single monochrome of imminent ecological collapse makes a mockery of the hard truth in the rocks beneath our feet.
IMAGE: What 540 million years of geological history says: Willis Eschenbach.
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
The obsession by politicians to censor social media is seriously pathological. They don’t like the mean things people say about them and they long for the days when they could just call the owner of the newspaper and kill or water down a negative story about themselves
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
You know, take the week. Or the month. Scratch that. How about never going on social media again? While you’re at it you could stop trying to censor it. Doing both might help your mental health. I genuinely mean that
Kat Allan 🐭🌼☀️😁 🤿 retweeted
Let’s be clear:
If I’m not going to sleep with you, I don’t need to know anything about your sexuality.
And children—who are not going to sleep with anyone—certainly don’t.
Your sexuality is not sacred. It’s not a personality, it’s not a protected class of performance art, and it’s not the center of anyone’s moral universe but your own. Unless we are in a relationship, I am not obligated to acknowledge, affirm, or be exposed to your private desires—especially not in public, and especially not in front of children.
This used to be understood. Now it’s called hate.
No, We Don’t Owe You an Audience
Sexuality belongs in the private realm. It is intimate by definition. If you feel compelled to wear your kink on your sleeve—or on a float, or in a first-grade classroom—you are not inviting understanding, you are demanding submission. You are violating others’ right not to participate.
Consent doesn’t vanish because your fetish is “progressive.” If anything, the burden is higher.
No one consents to being flashed on the subway. No one consents to a stranger’s arousal. No one consents to a stranger telling their child about masturbation, kink, gender identity, or pornographic categories under the guise of “inclusive sex ed.” Yet all of this is happening now—in public parks, in classrooms, in televised programming.
It is not tolerance. It is invasion.
Children Are Not Here to Validate You
Children are not queer. Children are not sexual. Children do not need to “see themselves represented” in a spectrum of adult desire. This idea—that identity is only valid if sexualized and mirrored—is narcissism, not pedagogy.
There is no legitimate reason to initiate a child into the language of sexual preference, gender identity, or alternative lifestyles. The only people who benefit from that dynamic are those looking to normalize boundary violations.
Let me state it plainly:
Children who are not going to have sex do not need to be exposed to sexuality.
Period.
Any adult who insists otherwise is not confused. They are grooming.
Public Fetishism Is Not Liberation
There is a vast difference between being gay and demanding the right to simulate sex acts in front of children. Between being transgender and insisting on teaching kindergartners about breast removal. Between being proud of who you are and insisting the whole world observe your kink play in the street.
This is not diversity. This is decay.
Men in dog masks being walked on leashes by their lovers are not brave—they are forcing strangers into their psychodrama. This is exhibitionism, and when children are present, it becomes criminal exhibitionism.
We used to know this. Peeping, flashing, voyeurism—these were considered red flags. Dangerous behaviors. Early signs of escalation. Now they’re filmed, hashtagged, and funded by public grants.
Stop Calling It Love—It’s Entitlement
This is not about who you love. It’s about how you demand to be seen. If you need the entire public to witness, applaud, and adapt to your sexuality, you’re not a pioneer—you’re an emotional colonizer.
Love does not demand a captive audience. It does not parade past toddlers. It does not demand that schools teach four-year-olds about “preferred pronouns.” Love protects children. Love guards modesty. Love waits.
And if you can’t wait—if you need to be seen, affirmed, and obeyed—you’re not talking about love. You’re talking about power.
Consent Applies to Culture, Too
We teach children that consent is sacred—so why are we failing to apply that lesson to public life?
No child consents to drag queen story hour.
No parent consents to leather harnesses on city floats.
No woman consents to being exposed to male sexuality in the ladies’ room, or in the school library, or anywhere she cannot opt out.
Consent is not just for sex. It’s for everything.
Attention. Language. Presence. Ideology. Imagery.
And we are done pretending we don’t notice when it’s violated.
The boundary is back.
And we are drawing it in bold.
